How international law can be improved?

Enhancing the Effectiveness of International Law: Pathways to a More Just and Coherent Global System

I. Introduction: The Evolving Landscape of International Law

International law serves as a fundamental framework for guiding states across a broad spectrum of domains, including peace, justice, human rights, trade, and environmental protection. It provides a crucial means for fostering stable, consistent, and organized international relations. However, despite its foundational role, the international legal system faces significant contemporary challenges. Geopolitical shifts, the rapid emergence of new technologies, and persistent global crises continually test its adaptability, enforcement mechanisms, and overall effectiveness. This report aims to explore various pathways to improve the efficacy of international law, addressing both overarching systemic issues and specific thematic areas that demand urgent attention.

A critical examination of international law's historical trajectory reveals a complex relationship with its past. Many scholars contend that the discipline's development is deeply intertwined with an imperial legacy, which has historically shaped racial hierarchies, economic exploitation, and unequal encounters between European and non-European polities. This perspective suggests that any genuine improvement in international law must transcend merely extending existing frameworks. Instead, it necessitates a profound reimagining of how the discipline is practiced, taught, and fundamentally conceived. The notion of "provincialisation" emerges as a strategy to address the universal claims often made by international law. This approach involves situating these claims within their specific historical contexts, thereby exposing how they have historically asserted hierarchies of knowledge and legal forms that disproportionately benefit powerful actors. This critical self-reflection is not merely an academic exercise; it is essential for constructing a more just and equitable international legal order. The aspiration for international law to be universally just and applicable encounters a fundamental tension when its very foundations are perceived to be rooted in historical power imbalances. This implies that truly enhancing international law's effectiveness requires a deep epistemological and historical re-evaluation, moving beyond a purely positivist view to embrace a more critical, decolonial approach.

The effectiveness of international law is intrinsically linked to its perceived legitimacy. If the discipline's legitimacy is questioned due to its imperial past, as highlighted by critical scholarship, then acknowledging and actively confronting this history becomes a prerequisite for any meaningful reform. The call to "practice the discipline differently, to teach it differently, and to think about it differently"  underscores that internal shifts within the academic and professional spheres are as crucial as external institutional reforms. This suggests a direct connection: historical awareness and critical self-reflection within the field are necessary for building trust and achieving broader participation, particularly from scholars and states in the Global South who may reject the simplistic view of international law as solely a tool for peace and justice. Without this internal transformation, reforms risk inadvertently perpetuating existing inequalities, thereby undermining their own stated goals of effectiveness and justice.

II. Strengthening International Institutions and Governance

Reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC): Addressing Veto Power and Membership Expansion

The United Nations Security Council, established in 1945, has undergone only one reform since its inception, which occurred in 1965, increasing the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10. Despite this singular adjustment, persistent calls for comprehensive reform continue to address critical issues such as the categories of membership, the contentious veto power held by the five permanent members (P5), regional representation, and the Council's overall working methods.

The veto power is frequently cited as a major impediment to the UNSC's effectiveness. Any of the P5 can unilaterally prevent the adoption of non-procedural resolutions, often prioritizing their national interests over the collective good of the international community. This has been starkly demonstrated by the Council's inaction or inability to respond effectively to crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, where draft resolutions have been consistently vetoed by Russia.

Proposals for reform are diverse and reflect varying geopolitical interests. These include expanding the Council to 24 members, as suggested by the Annan Plan (Plan A and B), and creating new permanent members, with the G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) mutually supporting each other's bids. These G4 aspirations are supported by the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the United States. Additionally, there are strong demands for enhanced African representation, with the African Group advocating for two permanent seats that would rotate among African countries. Conversely, the "Uniting for Consensus" group, led by Italy and including countries like Pakistan, opposes the creation of new permanent members, proposing instead an increase solely in the number of non-permanent members. Proposals for veto reform range from limiting its use to vital national security issues, requiring agreement from multiple states, or even abolishing it entirely. France, for instance, has proposed that the P5 self-regulate and refrain from using the veto against actions aimed at stopping mass atrocities.

A significant challenge to any meaningful veto reform lies in the UN Charter itself. Articles 108 and 109 grant the P5 veto power over any amendments to the Charter, effectively requiring their approval for any modification of their own power. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where the most significant impediment to the Council's effectiveness is also the most difficult to change due to the entrenched interests of the P5. This situation illustrates a core challenge in reforming international institutions where power is highly concentrated, suggesting that fundamental reform is likely to remain stalled unless there is a significant shift in geopolitical power dynamics or a collective moral imperative strong enough to overcome national self-interest. Broader UN reform proposals, such as those outlined in the "Second Charter" draft, suggest a more ambitious vision, including an expanded and more representative Security Council (totaling 25 seats, with new renewable 'long-term' regionally selected seats and additional non-renewable seats) and a concurrent override mechanism for the General Assembly and a proposed Parliamentary Assembly to address vetoes in exceptional situations.

The criticism surrounding the veto power extends beyond mere inefficiency; it points to a deeper democratic deficit in global governance. The ability of five countries to effectively "hold the world to ransom"  by blocking collective action raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the international system. The various proposals for an expanded Security Council with more representative seats (e.g., for G4 nations or the African Group) , coupled with the idea of a "Parliamentary Assembly" with veto override capabilities , underscore a broader global desire for more inclusive and democratic governance. The veto, therefore, is not merely a procedural flaw but a potent symbol of a system designed in 1945 that no longer accurately reflects the contemporary distribution of global power or the ideal of universal participation. The ongoing debate about UNSC reform thus serves as a microcosm of the larger struggle to democratize international decision-making and enhance its legitimacy in the eyes of a diverse global community.

Enhancing International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Lessons from the ICJ and ISDS

The effectiveness of international law is significantly demonstrated through its dispute resolution mechanisms. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stands out as one of the most effective organs of the United Nations, boasting a remarkably high compliance rate. Approximately 90% of its 192 cases since its establishment in 1945 have been implemented, either fully or mostly.

Several landmark cases illustrate the ICJ's success in promoting peaceful resolutions:

Chad v. Libya (1994):

The Court successfully settled a longstanding and often bloody dispute over the resource-rich Aouzou Strip. The ICJ ruled in Chad's favor, and Libya accepted the decision, withdrew its forces, and signed a peace agreement that remains in effect today.

Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia and New Zealand v. France, 1973 & 1995):

In 1973, Australia and New Zealand brought France to the Court over its atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean. Although France initially refused to participate or accept a decision, the case significantly increased pressure on France, leading it to end its atmospheric tests in 1974, even before the case concluded. New Zealand returned to the Court in 1995 to challenge France's underground nuclear tests, which ultimately resulted in France ending its nuclear testing program permanently in 1996, closing the test site, and joining the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Nicaragua v. USA (1984):

The Court found in favor of Nicaragua regarding US military actions, including the laying of explosive mines and supporting armed rebellion. Despite the US administration's initial stance not to adhere to the decision, the ruling provided considerable support for congressional and legal efforts within the US to change policy, which were eventually successful. The decision also played a crucial role in providing a legal and political framework for the negotiation and adoption of the Central American Peace Accords.

Corfu Channel case (1947-1949):

The ICJ held Albania liable for maritime damages caused by mines in the Corfu waterway, demonstrating principles of state liability and the theory of innocent passage.

ICJ Success Stories and Compliance Rates

In contrast to the ICJ's robust record, Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms face significant challenges, including "excessive costs, excessive duration of proceedings, lack of consistency in legal interpretation, incorrectness of decisions, lack of arbitral diversity, and lack of independence". To address these issues, social science research is increasingly proposed to inform ISDS reforms by identifying the underlying causes of these problems, rather than merely documenting their symptoms. For example, studies suggest that domestic political pressure on respondent states to avoid the perception of "capitulating" to foreign investors can significantly contribute to delays and a lower settlement rate in ISDS proceedings.

Proposed solutions for ISDS, informed by this empirical approach, include delegating decision-making power to specialized agencies or commissions to insulate them from political pressure, as exemplified by Peru's SICRECI (Coordination and Response System for International Investment Disputes). Another mechanism involves third-party fact-finding, where an independent body assesses dispute facts and issues objective reports, providing a basis for government settlement decisions and alleviating concerns about domestic backlash.

The high compliance rate with ICJ decisions suggests that states generally adhere to its rulings, even when initially resistant. This adherence implies a strong underlying political will or a significant cost associated with non-compliance, such as reputational damage or diplomatic pressure. Conversely, the persistent problems within ISDS, particularly regarding the duration and cost of proceedings, are linked to domestic political pressure on respondent states to avoid settlements. This highlights a crucial dynamic: the effectiveness of international dispute resolution mechanisms is heavily dependent not just on their legal design, but on the prevailing political environment and the ability to insulate decision-makers from short-term domestic political pressures. The ICJ's success, even without direct enforcement, lies in its capacity to generate sufficient political and moral pressure for compliance, whereas ISDS struggles when domestic political calculations outweigh the efficiency and fairness of resolution.

The traditional approach to problems in international law has often been theoretical or purely legalistic. The growing call for more social science research in international law, particularly in the context of ISDS, represents a significant shift towards an empirical, problem-solving methodology. By identifying the causes of institutional problems, such as political pressure leading to ISDS delays, rather than merely observing the symptoms, social science can inform more "tailored institutional reforms". This signifies a profound implication: moving beyond abstract legal theory to data-driven analysis can lead to more effective and practical solutions, especially in complex, multi-stakeholder environments, by directly addressing the root causes of ineffectiveness. This approach suggests a broader trend towards interdisciplinary collaboration in international legal scholarship and reform efforts.

Addressing Internal Accountability in International Bodies: The Case of the ICC

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established with the foundational mission of delivering justice for the most serious crimes of international concern, faces a growing dissonance between this noble objective and its internal governance practices. Persistent reports of workplace misconduct, including bullying, sexual harassment, and retaliatory behavior, have prompted renewed scrutiny of the Court's ability to model the very standards it seeks to uphold globally. These allegations have extended to high-profile individuals, including lead counsel practicing before the Court and even the ICC Prosecutor.

The 2020 Independent Expert Review (IER) identified a pervasive "culture of fear" within the ICC that inhibited staff from reporting misconduct, citing concerns about retaliation and ineffective follow-up as major barriers. The review specifically noted accounts of sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual advances from senior male staff to female subordinates, with female interns appearing particularly vulnerable. Five years after the IER, many of the core issues identified—such as bullying, harassment, and reprisals—continue to emerge, indicating a persistent challenge in implementing meaningful reforms.

The Court is currently perceived to lack a fully empowered and professionally resourced compliance architecture capable of responding to misconduct allegations in a timely, consistent, and victim-sensitive manner. Internal investigations are often criticized for being slow, opaque, and retraumatizing, frequently mirroring criminal proceedings with high burdens of proof, a process ill-suited for administrative disciplinary matters. These deficiencies discourage internal reporting, significantly affect the ICC's external credibility, and foster perceptions of double standards, thereby undermining its moral authority. For instance, the Russian Federation has cited these internal issues as evidence that the Court lacks moral authority, illustrating how internal failings can be leveraged by external actors to challenge an institution's legitimacy.

The internal accountability issues at the ICC, characterized by a lack of transparency, prolonged investigations, and a "culture of fear," are not merely isolated administrative problems; they directly undermine the Court's foundational mission and its external credibility and moral authority. The fact that external actors can leverage these internal failings to challenge the ICC's standing demonstrates a clear connection: if an institution cannot uphold standards of justice and accountability internally, its capacity to demand and enforce those standards externally is severely compromised. This underscores that effective international law requires not only robust external mechanisms but also impeccable internal governance, as perceived integrity is crucial for legitimacy and influence on the global stage.

The ICC's struggle with its internal grievance procedures, which are criticized for being overly "legalistic" and mirroring criminal proceedings with high burdens of proof and prolonged delays , reveals a broader systemic challenge within international organizations. This situation highlights the difficulty of designing and implementing internal administrative justice systems that are distinct from, and more appropriate than, the criminal or international law frameworks these organizations apply externally. This mismatch leads to inefficiency, re-traumatization of complainants, and a failure to address misconduct effectively. This suggests that international institutions need specialized expertise in human resources and organizational psychology, distinct from their core legal mandates, to build robust internal accountability mechanisms that are fit for purpose and do not inadvertently undermine their own operations and public trust.

III. Promoting Participation, Transparency, and Accountability

Fostering a Democratic and Inclusive International System: Beyond State-Centric Approaches

The critiques highlighting international law's imperial legacy underscore a pressing need for a more democratic and inclusive international system that transcends traditional state-centric views and actively addresses historical inequalities. The concept of "provincialisation" directly challenges the universal claims often made by international law, advocating for a re-evaluation that acknowledges diverse perspectives and avoids imposing a hierarchy of knowledge. This critical approach directly informs the imperative for a more democratic system.

Proposals for comprehensive UN reform, such as the establishment of a directly elected Parliamentary Assembly , aim to significantly enhance representation, democratization, and legitimacy by fostering broader participation beyond traditional executive governments. The "Second Charter" draft for UN reform further emphasizes enhanced ownership and more direct participation in the United Nations, and explicitly raises the standard for the participation of women in all aspects of the Organization's work. These initiatives collectively seek to ensure that the international legal system is not only effective but also genuinely reflective of the diverse global community it serves.

Increasing Participation by All Actors: The Role of Civil Society and Non-State Actors

While the provided information does not extensively detail specific mechanisms for fostering participation, broader UN reform proposals suggest upgrading the Economic and Social Council's (ECOSOC) engagement with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society, and other stakeholders. This indicates a recognition of the growing importance of non-state actors in global governance.

A compelling demonstration of the powerful impact of civil society and non-state actors in shaping international legal discourse and outcomes is the success of the ICJ's recent advisory opinion on climate change. This landmark ruling was notably initiated by a campaign launched by 27 law students from Pacific island countries, subsequently backed by over 100 other countries and organizations. This initiative highlights the immense potential for bottom-up pressure to drive significant change within the international legal system. Furthermore, the protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs), including youth and Indigenous defenders, is recognized as crucial for challenging climate vulnerability and promoting environmental justice. This further underscores the vital and evolving role of non-state actors in shaping and advancing international law.

The internal governance failures of the ICC, characterized by a lack of transparency and accountability for misconduct, directly undermine the institution's external legitimacy and moral authority. Simultaneously, the success of the ICJ's climate opinion, driven by external pressure from civil society, demonstrates how such pressure can drive significant legal developments. This illustrates a reciprocal relationship: for international law to be effective, it requires both robust external mechanisms for accountability (such as ICJ rulings and UN oversight) and transparent, accountable internal governance within the institutions that administer it. A deficiency in either aspect can severely cripple the other, suggesting that reforms must be holistic, addressing both the substantive law and the integrity of institutional processes.

The ICJ's climate advisory opinion, initiated by a campaign of 27 law students, serves as a powerful illustration of how non-state actors and civil society can act as significant drivers of normative change and legal development, even in the absence of traditional state-led initiatives. This suggests that enhancing the effectiveness of international law is not solely the purview of states or intergovernmental organizations; empowering and formally integrating civil society participation can accelerate the adaptation of international law to emerging global challenges, potentially bypassing political inertia from states. This indicates a shift in the perceived sources of legal momentum and highlights the need for formalizing channels for such diverse participation.

Mechanisms for Greater Transparency and Accountability: Learning from Institutional Challenges

The internal accountability issues at the ICC, marked by a lack of transparency, prolonged investigations, and a pervasive "culture of fear" , serve as a stark example of how a deficiency in internal transparency can undermine an institution's credibility and effectiveness. The call for a "fully empowered and professionally resourced compliance architecture" within the ICC  clearly highlights the critical need for robust internal mechanisms to ensure accountability and maintain institutional integrity.

Similarly, the persistent criticism of the UNSC's veto power  inherently points to a lack of transparency and accountability when national interests can unilaterally block collective action that serves the broader international community. Proposals for veto reform and increased General Assembly oversight  are direct responses aimed at addressing this democratic deficit and enhancing the Council's accountability.

In the rapidly evolving digital age, the imperative for transparency and accountability extends to the actions of companies. It is urged that companies ensure a clear understanding of lawful procedures for data requests and adopt "Privacy by Design" principles to reduce unnecessary data storage, thereby promoting transparency in data handling. Governments, in turn, are called upon to insist on Mutual Legal Assistance arrangements for data access, rather than resorting to extraterritorial demands, to enhance legal clarity and accountability in the digital sphere. These measures collectively contribute to building a more transparent and accountable international legal environment.

IV. Adapting International Law to Contemporary Global Challenges

International Law in the Digital Age: Human Rights, Cyber Warfare, and Governance

The advent of information technology has established cyberspace as the "fifth domain of warfare," alongside land, sea, air, and outer space, posing unprecedented threats due to the increasing global dependence on digital infrastructure. This new domain presents several major legal obstacles for international law:

Equivocal Definitions:

A primary challenge is the absence of a standardized lexicon and universally agreed-upon definitions for terms such as "cyber warfare" and "cyber operations." This ambiguity complicates legal responses and the implementation of countermeasures, as the precise legal characterization of a cyber event (e.g., whether it constitutes an "armed attack") is often unclear.

Non-Enforceable Documents:

Existing frameworks, such as the Tallinn Manual, while comprehensive and influential, remain non-binding. This lack of enforceability creates a significant hurdle for establishing clear and universally accepted legal guidelines in cyber warfare, leading to uncertainty and differing state interpretations.

Sovereignty & Jurisdiction:

Traditional definitions of state sovereignty, tied to physical territory, struggle to provide clear guidance in the extraterritorial realm of cyberspace. Determining jurisdiction is complex due to the transnational nature of data flows and the potential for overlapping claims, making it difficult to ascertain which state has the authority to regulate or respond to cyber activities.

State Responsibility and Attribution:

Attributing cyber operations to a specific state is technically challenging due to the architecture of cyberspace, the use of proxies, and the ability of perpetrators to disguise their origins. The high "effective control" test for attributing the actions of private actors to states, as established in international law, further complicates holding states accountable for cyber operations conducted on their behalf.

Cyber Weapons & Opinio Juris:

There is a notable lack of clear legal frameworks specifically designed for sophisticated cyber weapons. This is compounded by state secrecy regarding the development of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities and a reluctance to disclose their legal positions (opinio juris) on cyber warfare, creating a "cloud of speculation" that hinders the development of consistent norms.

These detailed challenges highlight a significant gap: technological advancement is occurring at a pace that outstrips the ability of international law to create clear, binding, and enforceable frameworks. This disparity between rapid technological evolution and slower legal development creates uncertainty, increases the risk of conflict, and complicates accountability. This suggests that the lag is a systemic problem across emerging domains, requiring new, more agile methods for international law-making and adaptation, potentially involving multi-stakeholder processes that include technology experts alongside legal scholars.

Major Legal Obstacles in Cyber Warfare

Concurrently, the digital age profoundly impacts human rights. States bear the primary responsibility for protecting human rights online under international law, with companies playing an important supporting role. Existing treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), protect online freedom of expression and privacy. Any restrictions on these rights must be legally based, serve a legitimate aim, be necessary and proportionate, and be subject to effective safeguards and remedies. Companies are urged to adhere to "Privacy by Design" principles, minimize unnecessary data processing, and ensure that user data is provided to governments only upon receipt of legally binding requests. Policymakers must adopt a human rights-based approach to digital technologies, understanding their pervasive impact on public life and safeguarding against abuses such as algorithmic bias, technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and data security vulnerabilities. Constitutional frameworks need to be flexible to adapt to rapid technological change, and there is a growing discussion on the "horizontal application of rights" to tech companies, recognizing their increasing power over individual freedoms.

While states are primarily responsible for human rights online, the emphasis on the "important supporting role" of companies and the discussion of the "horizontal application of rights" to tech companies indicates a fundamental shift in the landscape of human rights protection. Private entities increasingly wield significant power over individual freedoms and critical infrastructure. The implication is that international law's effectiveness in the digital age depends on extending accountability beyond states to these powerful non-state actors, requiring new legal and regulatory models that ensure human rights are central, rather than being marginalized by commercial or state security interests. This presents a complex challenge of balancing technological innovation, national security, and individual rights.

Climate Change and Environmental Obligations: The ICJ's Landmark Advisory Opinion

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark advisory opinion, stating that countries are legally obligated to protect and prevent harm to the environment and must take action to reduce climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling clarifies that a failure to curb emissions may constitute an "internationally wrongful act," and that responsible parties must cease polluting activities and, where restoration is impossible, compensate affected communities.

The opinion, notably initiated by Pacific island countries and law students, fundamentally reframes climate action as a legal obligation, moving beyond its previous perception as merely a moral plea or political choice. It establishes a "new legal baseline" and provides authoritative guidance for other courts, empowering vulnerable countries with stronger legal arguments in international negotiations and domestic litigation. The ICJ specifically interpreted the 1.5°C threshold as the legally binding standard for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, requiring states to reflect the "highest possible ambition" in alignment with this target. The opinion also confirmed states' obligations under customary international law, including the duty to prevent significant environmental harm with due diligence and cooperation. Furthermore, it explicitly linked climate change to human rights, affirming the duty to protect rights to a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" and procedural rights such as public participation and access to information. The ruling emphasizes the need to address systemic inequalities and corruption, which disproportionately undermine the adaptive capacities of marginalized communities in the face of climate impacts.

The ICJ opinion explicitly connects climate change to fundamental human rights, such as the right to life and a healthy environment, and emphasizes the need to address "systemic inequalities" and "corruption". This signifies a crucial evolution in international law, moving beyond a siloed approach to environmental protection. The implication is that effective climate action, under international law, now inherently requires a focus on environmental justice, protecting vulnerable communities and human rights defenders, and tackling the underlying socio-economic factors that exacerbate climate vulnerability. This holistic approach broadens the scope of "climate action" to include governance, human rights, and anti-corruption efforts, demonstrating how international law is adapting to the multi-faceted nature of global crises.

Unilateralism and Multilateralism: Impacts on International Law and Cooperation

Unilateralism, characterized by a country's decision to act independently without considering the interests or opinions of other nations, poses significant challenges to global governance, international cooperation, and regional stability. This approach directly erodes the authority and effectiveness of international law and treaties by violating or disregarding them, thereby creating uncertainty and undermining trust among countries. 

Illustrative examples of unilateral actions and their consequences include the United States' withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, in 2018, which was widely seen as a blow to the international non-proliferation regime. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 was similarly condemned as a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. China's actions in the South China Sea, including the construction of artificial islands and assertion of territorial claims, have also raised concerns regarding freedom of navigation and the rule of law in the region. Unilateralism can also lead countries to bypass or disregard international institutions, undermining their ability to promote global governance and cooperation. This is evident in the UNSC's inability to respond effectively to certain crises due to the use of veto power, or the World Trade Organization's (WTO) challenges in resolving trade disputes when countries resort to unilateral measures like tariffs instead of established dispute settlement mechanisms.   

Conversely, multilateralism emphasizes cooperation among multiple countries to achieve common goals, based on principles of shared responsibility, collective decision-making, and reciprocity. This approach leads to enhanced cooperation, increased legitimacy, more effective and sustainable solutions to global problems, and the promotion of shared values and norms. While multilateralism often refers to global cooperative action, it does not necessarily mean universality, with only a few treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the UN Charter being near-universal in their adherence. Regional cooperation is also a significant manifestation of multilateralism.   

The snippets clearly establish a direct connection: unilateral actions, such as the US withdrawal from the JCPOA or Russia's annexation of Crimea, directly lead to the "erosion of the authority and effectiveness of international law" and "undermining trust and confidence among countries". This implies that a fundamental challenge to international law's effectiveness is not merely its inherent limitations but the deliberate choice of powerful states to disregard established norms and institutions. The rules-based international order is fragile and constantly under threat from states prioritizing perceived national interests over collective adherence to international legal frameworks, creating a cycle of unpredictability and potentially encouraging further non-compliance.   

Given the detrimental effects of unilateralism, the benefits of multilateralism, such as shared responsibility and collective decision-making, become even more critical. The fact that even self-interested states can be driven to support multilateralism, as seen with US support after 1945, suggests that it is not merely an idealistic approach but a pragmatic necessity for addressing complex global challenges that no single state can solve alone. The implication is that, in a multipolar world with increasing geopolitical competition, investing in and strengthening multilateral institutions and treaty regimes is not just about upholding norms but represents a strategic imperative to manage global problems and prevent further fragmentation of the international legal order.   

Case Studies in Conflict: International Law in the Russia-Ukraine and Gaza Conflicts

Contemporary conflicts provide stark illustrations of the challenges and implications for international law.

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict:

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is widely considered a clear violation of international law, specifically Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Russia's justifications for its actions, claiming self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter by asserting defense of unrecognized "People's Republics," have been broadly rejected by international law experts as legally unfounded. The UN General Assembly condemned the invasion with an overwhelming majority vote, calling on Russia to abide by the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations. This conflict also highlights internal rule of law challenges within Ukraine, as the nation has faced pressure to restore the independence of its anti-corruption agencies, a crucial step for maintaining public trust and advancing its integration into international frameworks like the European Union.   

The Gaza Conflict:

The ongoing conflict in Gaza raises significant international humanitarian law (IHL) concerns, encompassing issues of distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality of attacks, the use of human shields, the destruction of civilian buildings, and the provision of humanitarian aid. The International Court of Justice's orders in    

South Africa v. Israel affirmed a "plausible risk" that Israel is violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention, imposing binding provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts, ensure humanitarian aid, and preserve evidence.   

IHL obligations regarding the evacuation and return of residents are particularly emphasized: evacuations must be temporary, based on concrete military necessity or for civilian protection, and strictly comply with the principle of proportionality. Concerns have been raised about potential forced expulsion and unlawful aims behind certain evacuation measures. Furthermore, the total blockade of humanitarian aid and the use of starvation as a method of warfare are explicitly prohibited under IHL. The ICJ's second order explicitly mandated Israel to "ensure" the unhindered provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. Reports of statements inciting genocide, alleged abuse of detainees, and concerns about the proportionality of attacks and incidents at aid distribution points raise serious questions about IHL compliance and underscore the duty to investigate such allegations.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates a clear violation of fundamental international law principles, particularly the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force. Despite widespread condemnation by the UN General Assembly, the invasion continues. Similarly, in Gaza, despite clear IHL obligations and ICJ orders, severe humanitarian crises and allegations of violations persist. This highlights a critical challenge: international law may clearly prohibit certain actions, but its effectiveness is severely limited by the political will and enforcement mechanisms available to compel compliance, especially when powerful states or actors are involved. While the normative framework of international law is robust, its operational effectiveness in preventing or immediately halting grave violations remains a persistent weakness, often due to the limitations of the UNSC or the complexities of attributing responsibility and enforcing compliance in ongoing hostilities.   

V. Towards Greater Coherence, Consistency, and the Rule of Law

Promoting Coherence and Consistency in International Legal Regimes

The challenges identified across various domains—such as the equivocal definitions in cyber law , the lack of consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) , and unilateral actions undermining established treaties —collectively highlight a pervasive need for greater coherence across international legal regimes. The International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion on climate change significantly contributes to this objective by clarifying the intricate interactions between climate change treaties, human rights law, and customary international law. This judicial interpretation provides a "normative compass" , illustrating how authoritative legal pronouncements can foster greater consistency and understanding within the broader international legal landscape.   

The inherent tension between unilateral and multilateral approaches directly impacts consistency. Unilateral actions, by disregarding established norms and creating unpredictability, actively undermine the rules-based international order. Therefore, promoting and reinforcing multilateralism is a critical pathway to fostering greater consistency and predictability in international relations. Furthermore, the urgent need for a "binding legal framework" in cyber warfare  underscores the demand for consistent, universally accepted laws to ensure the uniform application of international law in this rapidly evolving domain.   

Strengthening the Rule of Law Globally: Challenges and Opportunities

The Russian invasion of Ukraine stands as a stark example of a blatant violation of the UN Charter's fundamental prohibition on the use of force, a cornerstone of the international rule of law. The widespread international condemnation and calls for adherence to the Charter reinforce the enduring importance of upholding these core principles. The consistent rulings of the ICJ and its high compliance rates demonstrate that international courts can effectively uphold the rule of law, even in the absence of direct enforcement mechanisms, largely by relying on states' general interest in obeying international law. 

The "Second Charter" draft for UN reform aims to streamline decision-making, remove power distortions, and enhance the democratic legitimacy of the United Nations , all of which contribute to a stronger global rule of law. It also proposes limited compulsory jurisdiction for the ICJ, including a review function for the UN itself, further solidifying the judicial oversight within the international system.

The high compliance rate with ICJ decisions and the widespread condemnation of Russia's UN Charter violation illustrate a critical dynamic: when states generally comply, it reinforces the credibility and authority of international law. Conversely, blatant disregard, especially by powerful states, undermines this authority. This suggests a reinforcing dynamic: the more states adhere to international law, the stronger its normative force becomes, making it more effective. The challenge lies in breaking cycles of non-compliance and incentivizing adherence, which often requires a combination of legal pressure (such as ICJ rulings), diplomatic pressure (like UN General Assembly condemnations), and the perceived self-interest of states in maintaining a stable, rules-based international order.

Enhancing the Role of Regional Organizations: Complementing Global Efforts

Multilateralism is not exclusively confined to universal or global cooperation; regional cooperation also constitutes a significant manifestation of this approach. Regional organizations can play a vital and complementary role in the application and development of international law, particularly in specialized areas such as the use of force or international trade law. While the provided information does not extensively detail specific mechanisms for enhancing the role of regional organizations, the discussion of the African Group's demand for permanent UNSC seats highlights the growing recognition of regional blocs' importance in global governance and decision-making. The call for "more tailored institutional reforms"  in areas like ISDS, where regional or specialized bodies might be better equipped to address specific issues, further suggests a potential for enhanced regional mechanisms to contribute to the overall effectiveness and adaptability of international law.   

VI. Conclusion: A Path Forward for International Law

Enhancing the effectiveness of international law in a rapidly evolving global landscape requires a multifaceted and adaptive approach. The analysis presented in this report underscores several critical pathways for improvement, emphasizing both institutional reform and a deeper engagement with the foundational principles and contemporary challenges facing the international legal order.

Key Recommendations for Enhancing Effectiveness:

Institutional Reform:

Prioritize comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council to address the contentious veto power and expand representation to better reflect contemporary global power dynamics. Such reforms must balance ambitious goals with political feasibility to ensure practical implementation. Simultaneously, implement social science-informed reforms for international dispute resolution mechanisms, such as ISDS, to identify and address the root causes of inefficiency and ensure fairness.

Internal Accountability:

Strengthen internal governance and compliance architectures within international bodies, exemplified by the International Criminal Court. This involves ensuring greater transparency, effectively addressing workplace misconduct, and upholding the moral authority of these institutions, as their internal integrity directly impacts their external legitimacy.

Adaptation to New Challenges:

Develop robust and binding legal frameworks for emerging domains like cyber warfare, addressing critical issues such as definitional ambiguities, attribution challenges, and the regulation of cyber weapons. Leverage landmark judicial opinions, such as the ICJ's climate advisory opinion, to accelerate action on pressing global crises, integrating human rights and social justice perspectives into environmental law.

Promoting Normative Adherence:

Actively counter the destabilizing effects of unilateralism by reinforcing multilateral cooperation and strengthening the rules-based international order. This involves consistent adherence to existing treaties and norms, and a collective commitment to peaceful dispute resolution.

Inclusivity and Transparency:

Foster greater participation of civil society and non-state actors in international law-making and implementation processes. Their vital role in driving normative change and holding states accountable must be formally recognized and supported. Simultaneously, enhance transparency and accountability mechanisms across all levels of international governance to build trust and legitimacy.

Coherence and Rule of Law:

Promote greater coherence and consistency across disparate international legal regimes through clear judicial interpretations and strategic treaty development. Reinforce the global rule of law through consistent application and enforcement, recognizing the crucial interplay between international obligations and robust domestic legal systems.