The Hindu Editorial Analysis
28 February 2026
International law is not dead, its rules stay resilient
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-10 )
Topic: GS3-International Relations
Introduction
Rising tensions between major powers — including conflicts involving Ukraine, West Asia, and U.S.–Iran relations — have revived claims that international law is in decline. Critics argue that repeated violations of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force signal the collapse of the rules-based order.
However, despite undergoing strain, international law remains resilient. Declaring its death is premature and analytically flawed.
The Debate Around Use of Force
At the core lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.
Recent developments include:
- Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022).
- Military actions in Gaza and West Asia.
- U.S. interventions and sanctions-based coercion.
- Growing unilateralism and withdrawals from multilateral institutions.
These developments have placed stress on the norm against use of force. Yet breaches are not unprecedented:
- Soviet-Afghan War (1979–89)
- Falklands War (1982)
- Gulf War (1990–91)
- Kosovo conflict
- Iraq War (2003)
- Interventions in Syria and Libya
Even during the Cold War, Article 2(4) faced severe challenges. Yet international law survived.
Why International Law Persists
Normative Framework Remains Intact
Even powerful states justify their actions in legal terms:
- Claims of self-defence.
- Humanitarian intervention arguments.
- Collective security reasoning.
This shows that international law remains the language of legitimacy. If it were irrelevant, states would not seek legal justification.
Legalisation of International Relations
International law today extends far beyond war.
It governs:
- International trade.
- Foreign investment.
- Civil aviation.
- Maritime resources.
- Climate change agreements.
- Human rights conventions.
- Chemical and biological weapons regimes.
- Outer space governance.
This dense network of treaties reflects deep institutionalisation.
Judicialisation of Global Governance
International courts continue functioning:
- International Court of Justice (ICJ).
- International Criminal Court (ICC).
- Regional human rights courts.
- Investment arbitration tribunals.
These bodies quietly resolve disputes, demonstrating operational continuity.
International Law as a Social Phenomenon
International law functions not merely through coercion but through:
- Shared expectations.
- Reputational constraints.
- Normative legitimacy.
When international relations are legalised, power must be justified within a normative framework. This reduces arbitrariness.
The Real Threat: Populist Authoritarianism
The greatest threat to international law may not be isolated breaches but:
- Systematic disregard for multilateralism.
- Populist-authoritarian governance.
- Erosion of commitment to institutional norms.
However, even in such contexts, legal argumentation persists, indicating that the normative structure remains relevant.
Looking Beyond the UN Charter
International law extends beyond the prohibition on force.
Recent developments include:
- High Seas Treaty for marine biodiversity.
- Pandemic Agreement negotiations.
- Expansion of trade agreements such as India–EU negotiations.
- Increasing regulatory cooperation mechanisms.
Much of international law operates quietly:
- Facilitating global trade.
- Regulating aviation safety.
- Governing maritime shipping.
- Supporting cross-border communication networks.
Its strength lies in everyday functioning rather than media visibility.
Implications for India
For India:
- A stable international legal order supports strategic autonomy.
- Multilateral trade frameworks enhance export growth.
- UNCLOS protects maritime interests.
- Climate agreements support sustainable development.
- International adjudicatory mechanisms offer dispute resolution avenues.
India benefits from a predictable rules-based system while advocating reform of global governance institutions.
Conclusion
International law may be under strain, but strain does not equal collapse. While violations of the prohibition on the use of force are serious, the broader architecture of international legal order continues to function across diverse domains.
Rather than declaring its death, states must reinforce its legitimacy through dialogue, accountability, and institutional reform. In a multipolar and turbulent world, abandoning international law would strengthen unilateralism and weaken collective security.
The resilience of international law lies in its enduring capacity to shape expectations, justify conduct, and provide a framework for peaceful coexistence.