To quote the Roman intellectual Antonio Gramsci, a great range of “morbid signs” appear in times of crises. The deterioration of global rules, in particular, is accelerating.
Over the last years, the use of power in Iraq, therefore in Ukraine, and now in Gaza and Lebanon, not to mention some other less-publicized conflicts, has strained the position of traditional rules.
The idea of the law of nations as a system of governance in foreign relations is still being debated in the United States and other nations.
Generally, the disconnect between regulation and energy has not always been so clear. Scholars were not the only ones who were privy to legitimate concerns for a long time. The prevailing theory was organic law, that is, morality.
It primarily included philosophical reflections on what was really, fair, and right. According to the laws in place between sovereign states, international legal issues are now rephrased to describe what constitutes law.
But , regulations are often difficult to interpret, especially in the framework of lingering conflicts involving many position and non-state actors.  ,  ,
No wonder did the law seem to fluctuate so dramatically in accordance with the circumstances and conditions in the past. Law, in their eyes, could only be played a very minimal role in foreign affairs, one that was often and often circumscribed by energy realities.
It would be cruel, yet, to judge worldwide legislation only by its shortcomings or failures. Truthfully, we occasionally anticipate too much from international law and just remember it when it is necessary.
Maybe understanding how laws adapts to the changing world is a more positive way to view points. And, more frequently, what is in the cards for the international legal attempt in an age of corporate competition?
The “liberal West” and “illiberal sleep” will have a different energy balance depending on the shifting power balance between the “liberal West” and the “illiberal sleep,” according to Greek philosopher Heraclitus ‘ equivalent valley, in which” no gentleman ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same valley and he’s not the same man.”
It assumes that Western preferences are primarily the result of contemporary international law. As much as this construct looks appealing, some granularity is required. It is true that non-Western and non-aligned developing nations ‘ most pressing requests for reforms are primarily based on Western norms.  ,
However, non-Western states have not always been without influence. The United Nations, Bretton Woods institutions, Bandung 1955 and the human rights revolution of the 1970s and 1980s are all the result of concessions, interactions and political battles across cultural and regional divides.
No nation is actually advocating for the complete demise of the rules-based order at a time when the majority of the world is welcoming back multipolarity thanks to the emergence of more balanced power.
A much denser network of principles and procedures has been created in international law, replacing a contractual system of rules. The international judicial system is a significant player in the creation of a global system of governance, as exemplified by this transition.
The wheels of the international system are still turning even when the Security Council is unable to take action. In Ukraine, the International Court of Justice, the Human Rights Council, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights are all present.
Additionally, a record number of states played a significant role in bringing that situation before the International Criminal Court. Gaza is an obvious example of how internationalization is increasingly used in many conflicts, with the latter being a clear example of how to internationalize a conflict as a legal issue rather than just a political one.
The World Court has already been asked to indicate interim measures four times in 2024, in the case of South Africa ( and others ) v. Israel on behalf of the Gaza Strip’s application of the Genocide Convention.
This authority, which is only exercised when there is a need, has evolved into a legal tactic to advance case arguments on the merits. International courts and tribunals are unquestionably capable of changing the world. However, a word of caution is in order.
Judic institutions ‘ primary function has always been to resolve disputes between states without resorting to international politics ‘ greatest problems or even bringing justice to them.
Not all violations of international law should be addressed by courts with limited authority and enforceability. It would be both unrealistic and misplaced.
Given that there are so many unsolvable conflicts and so many international crimes, how should we respond to the growing need for justice and accountability?
Institutionalization, and not courts alone, could be one practical answer to such challenges. The UN Security Council has the authority to hold accountable when serious violations of international law occur through inventive procedural and substantive measures.
One proposal could be that the UN Security Council pass a resolution obliging the secretary-general to establish a general, centralized, fact-finding Unit on Serious Violations of International Law ( USVIL ).
When there is conclusive evidence that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide have been committed, the unit could make factual determinations and recommend further legal action.
There would be a number of benefits to creating a USVIL as a standing body. First, it would continue to support the Security Council’s primary function and refuse to request a change to the UN Charter.
Second, it would n’t have to depend on individual states’ moral standing or intentions, who can sometimes be more concerned with a situation’s outcome than its outcome.
Finally, it would avoid turning systematically to the World Court, which, as the main judicial organ of the United Nations, is not equipped to handle the world’s largest crises and an increasing number of disputes.
States at war that breach international law share the same responsibility. This wrongdoing consensus should not be discarded. Institutionalization is the best way to reassert some degree of political control and judgment because politics alone cannot guarantee peace and justice.
Eric , Alter, a former UN civil servant, is dean of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and professor of international law and diplomacy.