The recent trajectory of global developments, marked by global crises and state responses—or lack thereof—underscores the shortcomings of the international legal order and opens a discussion on its effectiveness.
Rooted in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and solidified in the aftermath of World War II, this order, which once aimed to manage international crises through predictable rules and cooperative frameworks, now appears to falter under contemporary challenges. In this sense, the Western-centric democratic model, once heralded as a pillar of stability and peace, is increasingly unable to fulfil its functions. Instead, we are witnessing a shift toward an era dominated by charismatic leaders—figures who thrive on rapid decision-making, mass mobilisation, and the centralisation of executive power.
This transformation inevitably has profound implications for international law and politics. The predictable rules that have long underpinned the international legal order are being overshadowed by the unpredictable actions of today’s leaders. Diplomacy is increasingly shaped by what can be described as “mafia-style”, where raw power and unilateralism often override established norms and institutions, transforming leaders into modern-day feudal lords, as was most powerfully demonstrated by Trump’s latest desire to prey on Greenland and the Panama Canal.
Accordingly, as the erosion of predictable norms gives way to this unrestrained exercise of power, the question arises: Can the existing international legal order, currently shaped by coercive and transactional diplomacy, adapt to political realities without succumbing to the chaos it perpetuates? It is within this tension—between the destabilising forces of modern geopolitics and the enduring need for legal frameworks—that calls for recalibration of international law emerge.
Even though these calls led some to argue that the international legal order is obsolete and that a system devoid of legal predictability can persist just as effectively, such stiff claims are not only misguided but also dangerously misleading. They reflect more the aspirations of those who seek to consolidate rampant power than any objective assessment of global realities.
Indeed, history demonstrates that international law has continuously evolved in response to crises and upheavals, adapting to new global dynamics. From the principles of state sovereignty established at Westphalia to the creation of institutions like the League of Nations after the Great War and the United Nations after World War II, moments of instability have historically propelled the reimagining of international law as a tool for order and cooperation. Consequently, today’s challenges demand a similar recalibration—not an abandonment—of this framework. To suggest otherwise is to ignore historical precedent and the enduring necessity of a rules-based international system in navigating an increasingly complex world.
A Need for Recalibration of International Law
In recent decades, global actors’ persistent and overt violations of international law, coupled with the inability to develop concrete responses to these breaches, have weakened its effectiveness and raised existential questions about its relevance as a meaningful legal framework. The widespread lack of accountability and enforcement in response to such violations has led many to describe international law as a “toothless tiger,” claiming it is a system unable to ensure compliance or deliver justice. This critique lies on this core point: the struggle to address 21st-century crises with the outdated rules and frameworks of the 20th century.
Thus, these critiques have fuelled calls for a recalibration of international law that enhances its capacity to enforce adherence and address emerging global challenges more effectively. This recalibration of international law would strip states of their ability to exploit the legal order as a tool for legitimising their violations by constructing an artificial adversary. Mainly, governments—often led by far-right leaders—portray international law as a modern-day behemoththat restricts national sovereignty and interests. By framing it as an obstacle to their agendas, they seek to delegitimise it in the public eye. Therefore, reforms in international legal order would dismantle these false narratives, preventing states from weaponising the demonisation of international law to justify unlawful actions.
The Deceptive Weaponisation of Legal Frameworks
First, a critical necessity in recalibrating international law lies in addressing the paradoxical trend of states invoking its institutions and principles to legitimise their unlawful actions. States increasingly exploit legal rhetoric to frame violations as compliance, undermining the norms they claim to uphold by further eroding trust in the system.
Consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, justified through a purported obligation to prevent genocide and framed as a response to the “invitation” from the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. This narrative weaponises humanitarian and procedural principles of international law to mask aggression, illustrating how legal mechanisms are co-opted to serve geopolitical ambitions. Similarly, Israel has long relied on legal doctrines such as the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter to legitimise decades of oppressive policies and military actions in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, as well as its recent military campaigns in Gaza. By anchoring its actions in legal terminology, it attempts to cloak systemic violations of humanitarian law in legitimacy. The United States, too, has leveraged the “War on Terror” to justify interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, invoking self-defence and collective security to rationalise military occupation and human rights abuses.
These examples underscore a troubling pattern: international law’s flexibility allows powerful states to distort its principles, transforming legal frameworks into tools of political exploitation. Such instrumentalisation weakens the law’s authority and deepens cynicism about its impartiality. Therefore, the recalibrated system must prioritise mechanisms to hold states accountable for abusing legal justifications, ensuring that adherence to international law is measured by actions—not rhetoric.
Reconciling Jurisdictional Divergences
Second, the recalibration of international law must also address its inherent structural and functional divergences from domestic legal systems, which underpin perceptions of its ineffectiveness on global issues.
Domestic law relies on centralised enforcement through courts and agencies within a vertical hierarchy, while international law operates horizontally, depending on voluntary state compliance without a supranational authority to enforce decisions. Therefore, bridging this gap requires enhancing judicial cooperation and creating effective compliance mechanisms. Strengthening the jurisdiction of international judicial bodies can reduce reliance on state cooperation, which often delays accountability. Additionally, as seen in Germany’s universal jurisdiction model, empowering domestic courts to apply international norms directly can decentralise enforcement and overcome legislative delays in dualist systems.
Further, systematic cooperation between international and domestic judicial bodies can harmonise interpretations of international law. For example, domestic courts could consult the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for advisory opinions on ambiguous cases, fostering consistency across legal systems.
Importantly, these reforms must preserve the voluntary nature of international law by relying on negotiated agreements rather than imposed hierarchies, ensuring sovereignty while promoting accountability.
Isolation as a Strategic Deterrent
Finally, the recalibration of international law should leverage the modern era’s deep economic, political, and technological interdependence to enhance compliance and accountability. Today, states rely highly on global trade, multilateral institutions, and transnational alliances for economic growth and geopolitical influence, making them more susceptible to isolation costs. By institutionalising mechanisms that exploit states’ aversion to isolation, international law can transform adherence to norms from voluntary acts into strategic necessities.
Isolation as a deterrent could disrupt states’ access to the benefits of global integration. Measures such as suspending voting rights in international bodies, restricting access to financial systems like SWIFT, or imposing sectoral trade embargoes can severely impact economies reliant on foreign investment and exports. Unlike traditional sanctions, these penalties focus on severing states’ integration into systems critical for modern governance.
To maximise effectiveness, isolation should be applied proportionally through a tiered system akin to the WTO’s dispute resolution framework. Minor violations lead to exclusion from specific funding mechanisms, while persistent breaches could result in suspension from regional trade blocs. This approach forces states to weigh short-term gains against long-term exclusion from essential networks.
All in all, while the inadequacies of the current international legal order in addressing emerging global crises are undeniable, abandoning international law entirely is not the solution. Instead, what is required is a strategic revitalisation of this faltering framework through targeted reforms. These reforms should prevent states from exploiting international law for self-serving purposes and establish stronger mechanisms for ensuring compliance. Only through such recalibration can international law reclaim its normative authority and function as a reliable framework for global governance in the 21st century.
