The United Kingdom and the Collapse of International Law
International law is no longer applied equally, and the United Kingdom is now complicit in that failure.
The United Nations was designed to restrain power through law.
Yet the structure of the Security Council—particularly the veto granted to its five permanent members—has ensured that the most powerful states are effectively immune from legal consequence.
Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, any permanent member can block enforcement action, even when accused of breaching international law themselves¹.
The United Kingdom, as a permanent member, bears particular responsibility.
While successive UK governments regularly invoke the “rules-based international order,” that order collapses the moment allies are involved.
The UK’s failure to condemn unlawful uses of force by the United States, or to meaningfully challenge Israel’s conduct in Gaza, demonstrates that legal principle has been subordinated to political alignment.
This is not without precedent.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq—explicitly found to lack a lawful basis by the UK’s own Chilcot Inquiry—marked a decisive moment in the erosion of international law².
No senior political figure was held accountable.
The lesson was clear: powerful states do not face consequences.
More recently, the International Court of Justice has found that there is a plausible risk of genocide arising from Israel’s actions in Gaza and has ordered provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm³.
The UK, however, has continued arms exports and political support, despite its obligations under the Genocide Convention and domestic export control law⁴.
Silence in the face of illegality is not neutrality.
It is acquiescence.
I recognise the historical irony of making this argument as a British citizen.
The United Kingdom’s imperial past is inseparable from violence and exploitation.
But history should teach restraint, not repetition.
If international law applies only to the weak, then it is not law at all.
And if the UK continues to shield its allies from accountability, it forfeits any moral authority to speak of a rules-based order.
Footnotes (UK)
1. United Nations Charter, Article 27 (1945).
2. The Report of the Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot Report), Executive Summary, 2016.
3. International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures Orders, January & March 2024.
4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948); UK Consolidated Criteria on Arms Exports.
Leave a comment