It has been often made up that international law would be severely damaged, particularly in light of the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, or at the very least vulnerable to significant erosion.
There are numerous different instances of the unrestrained use of power, not all of which are connected to the UN Security Council’s license or in self-defense. The fact that the control appears to be at a critical stage is what is new. According to President Donald Trump,” [ He who saves his country does not violate any law.
International law has always straddled the weakness of gentle organizations born to help it between the vanity of a so-called legal purchase and the weakness of fragile ones since the 17th centuries, when relations between princes came to be regulated by a law of nations.
In terms of its usefulness, validity, or even life, the law itself has been questioned. How could this be various when a de- or re-globalizing, but also interconnected world is confronted by rules and norms that are too simple to break or ignore, as they might initially appear to be?
One of the probable outcomes of current events is the possibility that international law will become constituted vacante. An age of limited cooperation and accumulated elements of conflict, some of which were carefully calculated, are likely to stop the quick reimposition of an international legal purchase necessary to ensure the application of maximum legal standards.
International law would need to adapt to a loose and perhaps ad hoc structure if it were to live perpetually under the crumbling values of a collapsing order. With the stringent regulations and values it allegedly accommodates and values, what should it do?
The philosopher and historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin once said that compromise was all that humanity could hope for. No straight thing was ever made out of the crooked wood of humanity, making a flexible and ambiguous compromise.
According to US President Harry Truman, the United Nations is based on a Charter whose only function was to maintain world peace post-World War II.
In contrast, the current order, which is largely based on a” coalition approach” to multilateralism, requires a lot more flexibility or elasticity and a lot of tolerability when great powers violate the laws.  ,  ,
Above all, not too much zeal! The phrase” Talleyrand” resonates once more in a time when we are collectively anticipating too much from international law and when we are only likely to remember it when we need it.
International law depends more than ever on the shifting power balance between the “liberal West” and the “illiberal rest,” just like Heraclitus ‘ River.
If the goal is to restore trust in the international legal system, international law must first integrate nations that were previously barred from enforcing rules. The price to pay is that commitments may become more generalized as opposed to those from groups with similar interests. However, this inclusive approach is necessary to reduce potential conflicts brought on by competing blocks.
Second, the current international order is based on international laws that not all states find to be comparable to international laws. However, these laws are authoritative expressions of principles that define the goals and course of collective action as well as technical standards that have been agreed to.
Respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, and territorial integrity are already the guiding principles of the UN Charter and other international standards, along with respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and an open international economic system.
The international system also contains the foundational principles for responding to global complex shocks, such as the ones relating to respect for the environment and development or the concept of shared but distinct responsibilities.
Some fundamental principles and conduct have typically been the basis for maintaining international order.
Due to their conflicting effects, it is undeniable that these principles cannot automatically solve a particular problem. They can, however, serve as criteria for discerning solutions by being carefully balanced and weighed. They can be unified to work in harmony despite the inherent tension between principles and pressing needs.
Why is that the case? Because principles are flexible, they don’t give specific procedure patterns or action plans. They are essential for the negotiation opportunities they open up and the beneficial additions they make in international negotiations to resolve conflicts of interest.
They are able to embody opposing tendencies by allowing for adaptation. Power differentials are tempered to create a more predictable environment, allowing diverse actors to have a voice and participate in decision-making, even in a UN system rife with privileges and hierarchy.
Thus, the role of major powers is always taken into account when interpreting the principle of equality among states.
Having a life of their own, those principles work beneath the surface. Contrary to rules and standards that require “long-term thinking and acceptance of short-term costs,” they don’t need maintenance.
Evidently, considerations of principle and law, however rational or justifiable, may not be sufficient to solve the current international law issue.
The straight line may not always hold up the Euclidian definition. In the complex pattern of international political action, such a line, as outlined by the purposes and principles of the Charter, may occasionally intersect with other lines.
Principles can, however, be applied in a less fervent and more cautious way in individual cases and can influence the creation of more frequent ad hoc arrangements and operational measures. Those in charge of” saving a country” will continue to face issues relating to political judgment.
Eric Alter is a former UN agent, dean, and professor of diplomacy and international law at the Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi.