Reports

In an era marked by armed conflict, mass displacement, climate collapse, and techno governance, international law finds itself in a profound identity crisis. Once hailed as the normative framework to prevent war, protect rights, and uphold global order, it now faces accusations of irrelevance, hypocrisy, and impotence. In 2025, what do we mean by “international law”? Is it a coherent legal system grounded in shared values, or a patchwork of norms invoked selectively by powerful actors? Traditionally, international law referred to treaties, conventions, and principles governing the conduct of sovereign states. But today, that definition feels increasingly inadequate. The global stage is no longer shaped solely by nation-states. Multinational corporations, billionaire technocrats, and transnational platforms exert influence that challenges the foundations of state-centric legal systems.
And states, even those states breaching international law, employ its logic to defend themselves against accusations (Bertamini, 2024). As power becomes more fragmented and legal norms more contested, International Law appears to oscillate between symbolic invocation and strategic manipulation. This paradox is particularly evident in how states and non-state actors alike selectively embrace legal language: not as a commitment to shared principles, but as a tool for legitimacy or deflection. The result is a global legal order marked by fragmentation, contested authority, and growing cynicism.

At the same time, the foundational values of international law, such as sovereignty, human rights, and the prohibition of force, are no longer universally accepted or equally applied. Rising authoritarianism, the erosion of multilateralism, and the normalization of exceptionalism challenge both the moral and practical foundations of the system, putting the whole system under threat, as when there is neither community of interests nor balance of power, there is no international law (Morgenthau, 1940). Meanwhile, new domains of power operate largely beyond the reach of traditional legal mechanisms, raising urgent questions about accountability and norm creation in the 21st century.

International law is not a fixed or static framework. It is derived from a range of dynamic sources. The most prominent source remains international treaties concluded between states. However, the conduct and practices of states, when carried out with a sense of legal obligation, also contribute to the development of customary international law. As a result, international law evolves not only through formal treaty-making, but also through consistent state behavior in response to new circumstances and developments in the international system (Heinze, 2011). While this adaptability is one of international law’s strengths, allowing it to evolve and respond to shifting global dynamics, it also presents a significant challenge. What does international law represent in an era where it is frequently undermined, or even invoked to justify actions that contradict its core principles? Once the exclusive domain of sovereign states, international law has always been deeply political, maintaining fragile balances and remaining highly susceptible to changes not only in legal frameworks but also in social, political, economic, media, and technological landscapes. If state power is increasingly shaped by these evolving factors, the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law are inevitably affected as well. Evidence suggests this is indeed the case. Emerging technologies have been used to commit grave violations of international law. Political alliances and global power dynamics influence how conflicts unfold and determine the degree to which certain crimes are condemned or overlooked, especially when committed by strategic partners. This selective application weakens the consistency and perceived inviolability of international legal norms. At the same time, power is no longer concentrated solely in the hands of states. Transnational corporations, digital platforms, and billionaire individuals now wield global influence, shaping public discourse, mediating access to information, and even participating in diplomacy. This shift prompts a fundamental question: can a legal system designed around state sovereignty still function in a world where the most influential actors are not bound by it?

However, assessing the current state of international law is a necessary exercise. First, engaging seriously with the argumentative dimension of international law demonstrates respect for those impacted by legal and political decisions. It acknowledges that individuals are not merely passive subjects within geopolitical dynamics but agents whose perspectives and experiences matter. Even when compliance is not the primary concern, offering reasons for decisions reflects a commitment to transparency and dialogue. This practice affirms people’s capacity for reasoned understanding and opens space for meaningful exchange, rather than closing it off. In this way, law serves not only to govern but to recognize and include (Hakimi, 2020).
Furthermore, examining the current state of international law offers a crucial opportunity to assess whether adjustments, interventions, or enhanced accountability mechanisms are needed. It provides a lens through which the international community can better understand global dynamics, evaluate the trajectory we are following, and identify areas requiring reform. This reflection is not an abstract exercise, it is deeply connected to the state of the world and affects all of us.