International law is no longer a constraint on power.
It has become a tool applied selectively enforced against weaker states and ignored by the strongest.
The United Nations Security Council lies at the centre of this failure.
Under the UN Charter, its five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—possess veto power that allows them to block enforcement action, even when accused of violating international law themselves¹.
This structural immunity has hollowed out the UN’s credibility.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ repeated uses of force without Security Council authorisation, and China’s record of vetoing accountability measures all demonstrate the same reality: power supersedes law.
Meanwhile, Israel continues military operations in Gaza despite provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice warning of a plausible risk of genocide².
These actions are not merely political disputes; they strike at the foundations of international law.
The prohibition on the use of force, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, is meant to be absolute³.
Yet enforcement depends entirely on a Security Council dominated by the very states most willing to violate it.
The result is a system of global inequality before the law.
Sanctions are imposed on some states with ease, while others veto consequences for themselves and their allies.
This is not a rules-based order—it is a hierarchy of power.
There are millions of citizens within these powerful states who oppose such behaviour.
There are also millions who positively condone such behaviour
International law is not failing because people reject it; it is failing because governments refuse to be bound by it.
If reform of the Security Council—particularly the veto—remains politically impossible, then the international community must confront an uncomfortable question: whether a new multilateral framework, without veto immunity, is now necessary to preserve the very idea of international law.
Without accountability, law becomes rhetoric.
And without law, global order collapses into force.
Footnotes (International)
1. United Nations Charter, Article 27 (1945).
2. International Court of Justice, South Africa v. Israel, Provisional Measures Orders, 2024.
3. United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) (Prohibition of the Use of Force).
International Law in an Age of Impunity
International law is no longer a constraint on power.
It has become a tool applied selectively enforced against weaker states and ignored by the strongest.
The United Nations Security Council lies at the centre of this failure.
Under the UN Charter, its five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—possess veto power that allows them to block enforcement action, even when accused of violating international law themselves¹.
This structural immunity has hollowed out the UN’s credibility.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ repeated uses of force without Security Council authorisation, and China’s record of vetoing accountability measures all demonstrate the same reality: power supersedes law.
Meanwhile, Israel continues military operations in Gaza despite provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice warning of a plausible risk of genocide².
These actions are not merely political disputes; they strike at the foundations of international law.
The prohibition on the use of force, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, is meant to be absolute³.
Yet enforcement depends entirely on a Security Council dominated by the very states most willing to violate it.
The result is a system of global inequality before the law.
Sanctions are imposed on some states with ease, while others veto consequences for themselves and their allies.
This is not a rules-based order—it is a hierarchy of power.
There are millions of citizens within these powerful states who oppose such behaviour.
International law is not failing because people reject it; it is failing because governments refuse to be bound by it.
If reform of the Security Council—particularly the veto—remains politically impossible, then the international community must confront an uncomfortable question: whether a new multilateral framework, without veto immunity, is now necessary to preserve the very idea of international law.
Without accountability, law becomes rhetoric.
And without law, global order collapses into force.
Footnotes (International)
1. United Nations Charter, Article 27 (1945).
2. International Court of Justice, South Africa v. Israel, Provisional Measures Orders, 2024.
3. United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) (Prohibition of the Use of Force).
International law is no longer a constraint on power.
It has become a tool applied selectively enforced against weaker states and ignored by the strongest.
The United Nations Security Council lies at the centre of this failure.
Under the UN Charter, its five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—possess veto power that allows them to block enforcement action, even when accused of violating international law themselves¹.
This structural immunity has hollowed out the UN’s credibility.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ repeated uses of force without Security Council authorisation, and China’s record of vetoing accountability measures all demonstrate the same reality: power supersedes law.
Meanwhile, Israel continues military operations in Gaza despite provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice warning of a plausible risk of genocide².
These actions are not merely political disputes; they strike at the foundations of international law.
The prohibition on the use of force, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, is meant to be absolute³.
Yet enforcement depends entirely on a Security Council dominated by the very states most willing to violate it.
The result is a system of global inequality before the law.
Sanctions are imposed on some states with ease, while others veto consequences for themselves and their allies.
This is not a rules-based order—it is a hierarchy of power.
There are millions of citizens within these powerful states who oppose such behaviour.
International law is not failing because people reject it; it is failing because governments refuse to be bound by it.
If reform of the Security Council—particularly the veto—remains politically impossible, then the international community must confront an uncomfortable question: whether a new multilateral framework, without veto immunity, is now necessary to preserve the very idea of international law.
Without accountability, law becomes rhetoric.
And without law, global order collapses into force.
Footnotes (International)
1. United Nations Charter, Article 27 (1945).
2. International Court of Justice, South Africa v. Israel, Provisional Measures Orders, 2024.
3. United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) (Prohibition of the Use of Force).
Leave a comment