Introduction
Law and power in international society are deeply intertwined, shaping global order, diplomacy, and conflict resolution. International law establishes norms and principles that govern state behavior, but its effectiveness often depends on the political will of powerful nations. While legal frameworks like the United Nations (UN) Charter and international treaties aim to ensure equality among states, the reality is far more complex. Global power dynamics influence how international law is created, applied, and enforced, often favoring dominant states while sidelining weaker ones.
The tension between legal principles and political power raises critical questions. Is international law merely a tool for powerful states to legitimize their actions, or does it genuinely constrain them? Some scholars argue that international law provides a legal shield for hegemonic interests, while others see it as an evolving mechanism that fosters cooperation and accountability. The selective enforcement of international legal norms—such as in cases of military intervention, economic sanctions, and war crimes—demonstrates how power shapes the law, rather than the other way around.
This article explores the relationship between law and power in international society, examining how legal frameworks are influenced by geopolitical forces. It delves into historical developments, theoretical perspectives, and contemporary challenges in enforcing international law. By analyzing cases such as the Iraq War, the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the legal battles over sovereignty, the discussion highlights how states manipulate or adhere to legal norms based on their strategic interests. Through this lens, the complexities of law and power in international society become evident, shedding light on the global struggle between legal order and political influence.
II. Theoretical Frameworks on Law and Power
The relationship between law and power in international society is shaped by various theoretical frameworks that offer competing explanations for how legal norms function in a world dominated by political interests. While some perspectives view international law as an independent force capable of constraining state behavior, others argue that legal norms are merely reflections of power structures. Understanding these theories is crucial to analyzing how international law operates in practice and how states use or manipulate legal principles to serve their strategic interests.
Realist Perspective: Law as a Tool of State Power
Realism, a dominant school of thought in international relations, views international law as secondary to state power. Realists argue that legal norms are effective only when they align with the interests of powerful states. This perspective suggests that states comply with international law when it serves their geopolitical and economic goals but disregard it when it conflicts with their national interests. For example, the United States and Russia have often bypassed the UN Security Council when launching military interventions, citing national security concerns or humanitarian justifications.
Hans Morgenthau, a key realist scholar, asserted that international law lacks enforcement mechanisms capable of compelling powerful states to obey. Since there is no global government with the authority to impose legal obligations, realists believe that international law functions more as a diplomatic tool than a binding force. This perspective explains why some countries refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of international courts, such as the ICC, when it threatens their sovereignty. The Iraq War in 2003 exemplifies this dynamic, where legal debates over the legitimacy of military action were ultimately overshadowed by U.S. and U.K. strategic interests.
However, realism does not entirely dismiss the role of international law. Instead, it sees law as an instrument used by powerful states to legitimize their actions. Treaties, trade agreements, and diplomatic negotiations are framed within legal discourse, but their enforcement is often selective, reinforcing existing power structures rather than challenging them. This selective application weakens the credibility of legal institutions, making international law appear as a privilege of the strong rather than a universal framework.
Liberal Perspective: Law as a Mechanism for Cooperation
In contrast to realism, liberalism argues that international law facilitates cooperation among states and reduces anarchy in global affairs. Liberal theorists believe that legal norms are essential for maintaining stability, promoting trade, and resolving conflicts without resorting to war. Institutions such as the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional agreements like the European Union (EU) serve as examples of how legal frameworks can shape state behavior through diplomacy and mutual interests.
According to liberals, states comply with international law not just because of power dynamics but due to the long-term benefits of legal order. The WTO's dispute resolution mechanism, for instance, provides a structured legal process that even powerful nations follow to settle trade disputes. Similarly, the success of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in holding states accountable for human rights violations demonstrates that legal norms can sometimes override political interests.
Moreover, liberal theorists argue that international law evolves through cooperation and reciprocity. Multilateral treaties on climate change, arms control, and human rights reflect collective efforts to address global challenges beyond national borders. While enforcement remains a challenge, legal norms create expectations that shape diplomatic behavior, reducing the likelihood of conflict. Critics, however, point out that compliance with international law often depends on economic and military incentives, limiting its influence over states unwilling to cooperate.
Constructivist Perspective: Law as a Product of Normative Structures
Constructivism presents a different approach, emphasizing that law and power in international society are shaped by social and normative structures. Unlike realists, who focus on material power, and liberals, who highlight institutional cooperation, constructivists argue that legal norms are formed by shared ideas, beliefs, and identities. International law is not merely a set of rules enforced by powerful states but a dynamic process influenced by global norms, cultural values, and public opinion.
For example, the global shift toward recognizing human rights and criminal accountability for leaders accused of war crimes reflects the power of normative change. The establishment of the ICC, despite opposition from major powers like the U.S. and China, demonstrates that international law can gain legitimacy through moral and ethical considerations rather than brute force. Similarly, the global movement to combat climate change—leading to agreements like the Paris Accord—shows how evolving norms can push states toward legal commitments, even in the absence of strict enforcement mechanisms.
Constructivists also emphasize the role of non-state actors in shaping legal norms. Advocacy groups, international organizations, and public opinion influence how laws are perceived and applied. The pressure exerted by civil society in cases like the prosecution of former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for genocide illustrates how legal accountability can emerge even when powerful states resist it. Constructivists believe that as global values shift, international law will continue to evolve, creating new standards that redefine power dynamics.
Critical Theories: Colonialism, Capitalism, and Legal Inequality
Critical legal scholars challenge mainstream theories by arguing that law and power in international society are rooted in historical inequalities. They contend that international law has often been used to justify colonialism, economic exploitation, and political domination. European colonial powers in the 19th and 20th centuries employed legal doctrines, such as the "civilizing mission," to legitimize territorial expansion and resource extraction. Even today, developing nations argue that international trade laws favor Western economies, perpetuating economic disparities.
Dependency theory, a branch of critical legal studies, highlights how global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank impose legal conditions on developing countries, reinforcing economic dependence. Structural adjustment programs, often presented as legal financial agreements, have led to austerity measures that disproportionately harm weaker economies. From this perspective, international law is not a neutral framework but a system designed to maintain global hierarchies.
Another critical approach is Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), which examines how former colonial states navigate international legal systems dominated by Western powers. TWAIL scholars argue that while international law has evolved to include human rights and decolonization principles, it still reflects the interests of dominant states. The struggle for representation in institutions like the UN Security Council and the WTO demonstrates the ongoing tension between legal equality and geopolitical power.
III. Historical Evolution of Law and Power in International Society
The development of law and power in international society has been shaped by historical events, shifting power structures, and evolving legal norms. From ancient treaties to modern international institutions, legal frameworks have often reflected the political dominance of powerful states while also serving as mechanisms for diplomacy and conflict resolution. Understanding how international law has evolved helps explain its current role in global governance and its limitations in balancing power dynamics.
A. Early Foundations of International Law
The origins of international law can be traced back to the earliest civilizations, where treaties and customary practices governed relations between states. In the ancient world, agreements such as the peace treaties of Mesopotamian city-states, the Egyptian-Hittite Treaty of Kadesh (1259 BCE), and the diplomatic protocols of the Greek and Roman empires set precedents for legal principles that still influence modern international law. These agreements focused primarily on military alliances, trade, and territorial disputes, demonstrating that legal frameworks were already being used to regulate power struggles.
During the Middle Ages, religious influences played a significant role in shaping legal norms. The Catholic Church established canon law, which influenced diplomatic relations and the development of just war theory. Islamic legal traditions, particularly the principles of siyar (Islamic international law), also contributed to the early legal framework governing relations between Muslim and non-Muslim states. These religious legal systems laid the groundwork for concepts like diplomatic immunity and the treatment of prisoners of war, which remain relevant in contemporary international law.
Despite these early legal structures, power remained the primary determinant of international relations. Treaties were often violated when political or military conditions changed, and weaker states had little recourse when more powerful states disregarded legal agreements. This pattern of selective compliance continues to define international law today, where powerful nations can bypass or reinterpret legal norms to suit their strategic interests. For further insight into how ancient legal traditions shaped modern frameworks, see this analysis on international law in the ancient world.
B. The 19th and 20th Centuries: Expansion and Institutionalization
The 19th century marked a turning point in law and power in international society, as European colonial powers codified legal principles to regulate their global empires. The Concert of Europe, established after the Napoleonic Wars, was one of the first formalized attempts at collective security, where major powers cooperated to maintain stability. However, international law during this period was largely Eurocentric, designed to serve the interests of colonial powers while disregarding the sovereignty of non-European states.
One of the most significant legal developments of the 19th century was the codification of the laws of war, particularly the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, which established humanitarian standards for armed conflict. These legal instruments sought to limit the brutality of war, but their enforcement depended on state power. European states generally adhered to these laws when dealing with each other but often ignored them in conflicts with colonial territories. The legal double standards of this era highlight how international law has historically been shaped by power imbalances.
The early 20th century saw the rise of international organizations aimed at promoting legal order, most notably the League of Nations (1920). The League was created to prevent another world war through collective security and legal dispute resolution. However, its failure to stop aggression by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan demonstrated that international law alone could not constrain expansionist states without military power to back it up. The collapse of the League reinforced the realist argument that law remains secondary to power in global affairs.
The post-World War II era brought a renewed effort to institutionalize international law through the United Nations (UN) and the Bretton Woods system, which established financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The UN Charter provided a legal framework for global peace and security, emphasizing sovereignty, human rights, and collective security. However, enforcement mechanisms remained weak, and major powers retained veto power in the UN Security Council, allowing them to bypass legal restrictions when their interests were at stake. For a deeper look into how the 19th century shaped contemporary legal structures, refer to this discussion on modern international law.
C. Cold War and Post-Cold War Transformations
The Cold War (1947–1991) further demonstrated the tension between law and power in international society. The ideological struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union led to competing legal interpretations of sovereignty, intervention, and human rights. Both superpowers frequently justified military interventions under the pretext of legal legitimacy while undermining international legal institutions when it suited their strategic goals. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan illustrate how legal arguments were used to mask geopolitical ambitions.
Despite these power struggles, the Cold War period also saw the expansion of international human rights law, particularly with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These legal developments created new norms that states had to consider, even if enforcement remained inconsistent. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 further reinforced the idea that legal accountability should extend beyond state borders, holding individuals—especially political and military leaders—responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Following the Cold War, globalization and the rise of multilateral organizations reshaped international legal dynamics. The World Trade Organization (WTO) became a powerful institution regulating global commerce, while regional legal systems, such as the European Union (EU) and African Union (AU), gained influence in setting legal standards. However, the dominance of Western legal norms in these institutions has led to criticism from developing nations, who argue that the global legal order remains biased toward the interests of major economic powers.
The post-9/11 era introduced new challenges for international law, particularly in the context of counterterrorism and the use of force. The 2003 Iraq War, launched without explicit UN authorization, reignited debates about the legality of unilateral military interventions. Similarly, drone warfare and cyberattacks have raised legal questions about state sovereignty and the applicability of international law to new forms of conflict. These contemporary issues highlight the ongoing struggle to balance legal principles with the realities of power politics.
IV. The Relationship Between Law and the Use of Force
The regulation of force is one of the most contested areas in law and power in international society. While international law sets clear principles on the use of force, states often reinterpret or bypass these legal frameworks to justify military actions. The balance between sovereignty, self-defense, and humanitarian intervention remains a key issue, as powerful states frequently use force under claims of legality while weaker states lack the same leverage. This section explores the legal constraints on force, historical case studies, and emerging challenges in the evolving landscape of international conflict.
A. Legal Constraints on the Use of Force
International law seeks to limit the use of force through a set of legal frameworks that emphasize sovereignty and non-aggression. The UN Charter (1945), the most authoritative source of modern international legal principles, establishes two primary conditions under which states may lawfully use force:
Self-defense (Article 51): States have an inherent right to defend themselves against an armed attack. However, the principle of proportionality and necessity must be observed to ensure that self-defense is not used as a pretext for aggression.
UN Security Council Authorization (Chapter VII): The Security Council has the power to approve military interventions if they are necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
These legal constraints aim to prevent unilateral military action, ensuring that war is not waged based on individual state interests. However, the application of these rules is often selective, as major powers frequently justify military action outside these legal boundaries. The Kosovo intervention (1999) by NATO, the 2003 Iraq War, and Russia’s invasion of Crimea (2014) all illustrate how states reinterpret legal frameworks to fit strategic objectives.
Additionally, the concept of humanitarian intervention has challenged traditional legal norms. Some argue that intervention is justifiable when a state commits mass atrocities against its population, even without Security Council approval. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, endorsed by the UN in 2005, aims to reconcile sovereignty with human rights protection. However, its inconsistent application has led to accusations that it is merely a tool for powerful states to justify intervention when politically convenient.
B. Case Studies: Legal Debates on Military Intervention
1. The 2003 Iraq War: Legality vs. Political Justifications
The 2003 invasion of Iraq remains one of the most controversial examples of law and power in international society. The United States and the United Kingdom justified the intervention by claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had violated UN Security Council resolutions. However, no explicit Security Council authorization was given for the war, leading to widespread debates over its legality.
Critics argue that the war violated the UN Charter, as it did not fall under self-defense or receive direct approval from the Security Council. Legal scholars and international organizations condemned the invasion as a breach of international law, yet no legal consequences were imposed on the invading states. This case highlights the limits of legal enforcement when powerful nations disregard international norms.
2. Russia’s Annexation of Crimea (2014)
Russia’s intervention in Crimea provides another example of how legal arguments are used to justify military actions. The Russian government claimed that its use of force was necessary to protect Russian-speaking populations in Crimea and that the region’s subsequent referendum on joining Russia was an exercise in self-determination. However, Ukraine and most of the international community rejected this justification, arguing that it violated Ukrainian sovereignty and international legal norms prohibiting territorial annexation.
Despite international condemnation and economic sanctions, Russia faced no direct legal consequences for its actions. This case further demonstrates how power dynamics override legal constraints, especially when a state possesses military strength and veto power in the UN Security Council.
3. NATO’s Intervention in Kosovo (1999): Legal Gray Areas
The NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo is often cited as an example of a military intervention that had humanitarian justifications but lacked full legal backing. NATO intervened to stop human rights abuses by Serbian forces against ethnic Albanians, but the operation did not receive Security Council authorization due to opposition from Russia and China.
Proponents of the intervention argue that it was morally justified under humanitarian law and paved the way for the later Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. However, critics contend that NATO set a dangerous precedent by bypassing the UN and taking unilateral military action. The case underscores the ongoing debate over when the use of force is legally and ethically permissible without formal international approval.
C. Emerging Challenges in Regulating the Use of Force
1. Hybrid Warfare and Cyberattacks
Traditional international law is struggling to adapt to new forms of conflict, such as cyber warfare and hybrid warfare. Unlike conventional military aggression, cyberattacks do not always involve direct physical force but can cause severe economic and security damage. States like Russia, China, and the U.S. have been accused of using cyber operations to disrupt foreign governments and infrastructure, yet there is no comprehensive legal framework to regulate cyber warfare under international law.
Hybrid warfare, which combines conventional military force with disinformation campaigns, proxy forces, and economic coercion, also presents legal challenges. For example, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine has relied on paramilitary groups and indirect methods to exert control, making it difficult to attribute legal responsibility. Existing legal norms were designed for traditional warfare and struggle to address these evolving threats.
2. The Role of Private Military Contractors (PMCs)
The increasing use of private military contractors (PMCs), such as Blackwater (now Academi) in Iraq and Wagner Group in Africa, complicates the legal regulation of warfare. These groups operate in legally ambiguous spaces, often acting as proxies for state interests while avoiding direct accountability under international law.
While mercenaries are prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, PMCs exploit legal loopholes to conduct military operations with minimal oversight. Their presence in conflict zones raises questions about state responsibility and the application of war crimes laws, particularly when PMCs are involved in human rights abuses.
3. The Legality of Preemptive Self-Defense
One of the most contentious debates in international law is the legality of preemptive self-defense—the idea that a state can use force before being attacked if it perceives an imminent threat. The U.S. justification for drone strikes in counterterrorism operations, particularly in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, is based on the argument that such actions prevent future attacks. However, critics argue that preemptive self-defense expands the definition of self-defense beyond what the UN Charter originally intended, creating a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action.
The lack of a clear legal standard for preemptive strikes leaves room for states to justify aggression under the guise of national security. Without stronger legal mechanisms, the risk of abuse remains high, potentially undermining global stability and the legitimacy of international law.
V. The Influence of Major Powers on International Law
The interaction between law and power in international society is most evident in how major powers shape, interpret, and enforce international law. While legal frameworks are intended to apply universally, powerful states frequently influence their development and implementation to align with national interests. The United States, China, the European Union, and emerging global players like BRICS nations wield significant influence over international law, often using it as a diplomatic tool while selectively adhering to its principles.
This section examines how major powers engage with international legal systems, from the United States’ strategic approach to international law to China’s growing legal influence, the EU’s normative power, and the role of developing states in reshaping legal norms.
A. The United States and International Law: Selective Engagement
The United States has historically played a paradoxical role in international law, acting both as its chief architect and a frequent critic. As a dominant global power, the U.S. has been instrumental in creating key legal institutions, including the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, it has also resisted legal constraints that could limit its foreign policy or military actions.
One of the most notable examples of U.S. selective engagement with international law is its relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although the U.S. played a key role in drafting the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, it ultimately refused to ratify the treaty. Washington argued that the court could be used for politically motivated prosecutions against U.S. military personnel and government officials. In 2020, the Trump administration even imposed sanctions on ICC officials investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, highlighting the tension between power and legal accountability.
The U.S. also demonstrates its influence through economic sanctions and unilateral military actions. The 2003 Iraq War was launched without explicit UN authorization, relying instead on legal arguments about preemptive self-defense and prior Security Council resolutions. Similarly, U.S. economic sanctions against countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are framed as legal enforcement mechanisms but often serve broader geopolitical objectives. The reliance on domestic legal frameworks, such as the Global Magnitsky Act, allows the U.S. to impose unilateral punitive measures while bypassing multilateral legal processes.
Despite these contradictions, the U.S. remains a key enforcer of international legal norms in areas such as trade law, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. Its legal arguments—whether supporting military interventions or justifying economic measures—shape global legal debates, reinforcing the idea that international law is often dictated by the priorities of dominant powers.
B. China’s Legal Strategy: Expanding Influence in International Law
China has increasingly asserted itself as a global legal actor, using international law to expand its influence while resisting legal constraints that could limit its sovereignty. Unlike the U.S., which often disregards legal institutions it disagrees with, China engages in legal diplomacy to reshape global norms in its favor.
One of the most visible areas of China’s legal strategy is its territorial claims in the South China Sea. Despite a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that rejected China’s claims, Beijing dismissed the decision and reinforced its presence in disputed waters. China’s approach demonstrates how major powers can ignore legal rulings when enforcement mechanisms are weak.
At the same time, China actively participates in global trade law and investment agreements. Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing has developed bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and regional trade agreements that embed Chinese legal standards into global commerce. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest trade bloc, exemplifies how China is shaping legal frameworks to align with its economic interests.
China’s increasing influence in international law also extends to cybersecurity, digital governance, and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation. The country has advocated for state sovereignty over the internet, challenging Western models of free digital access and promoting legal frameworks that allow governments to exert greater control over cyberspace. This strategic engagement demonstrates how China leverages legal mechanisms to expand its geopolitical influence while avoiding legal constraints that threaten its interests.
C. The European Union as a Normative Legal Power
Unlike the U.S. and China, the European Union (EU) is often seen as a "normative power" that prioritizes international law as a tool for governance and human rights promotion. The EU’s legal influence is particularly strong in areas such as human rights law, environmental regulation, and trade agreements, where it imposes strict legal standards on member states and external partners.
One of the EU’s most significant legal achievements is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has successfully adjudicated cases against both European and non-European states. This legal mechanism ensures that human rights violations are prosecuted at a supranational level, reinforcing the EU’s commitment to international legal norms.
In trade law, the EU uses its economic power to enforce legal standards worldwide. The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and sustainable trade agreements require partner countries to comply with labor rights, environmental protections, and human rights laws in exchange for preferential trade benefits. This approach has allowed the EU to influence legal reforms in countries across Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
However, the EU also faces challenges in securing enforcement of international law against major powers. Despite supporting international climate agreements like the Paris Accord, the EU struggles to hold major polluters accountable. Similarly, its response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted limitations in using legal mechanisms to deter military aggression. While the EU has imposed sanctions and legal measures, these efforts have not forced compliance, underscoring the gap between legal principles and geopolitical realities.
D. The Role of Developing States in Reshaping International Law
While traditionally marginalized in international legal discourse, developing states are increasingly challenging the dominance of Western legal norms. The rise of BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and regional legal frameworks in Africa and Latin America has led to efforts to reform international institutions, trade agreements, and legal accountability mechanisms.
One key area of contestation is sovereign debt law. Many developing states argue that the IMF and World Bank impose unfair legal conditions on borrowing nations, reinforcing economic dependency. Recent legal efforts, such as Africa’s push for debt restructuring mechanisms, reflect a growing demand for fairer legal standards in financial agreements.
Another example is the push for legal recognition of indigenous rights and environmental protections. Countries in Latin America, particularly Bolivia and Ecuador, have incorporated the rights of nature into their legal systems, challenging traditional international legal frameworks that prioritize state sovereignty over environmental concerns. This shift represents an attempt by developing nations to reshape legal norms from the ground up.
However, these efforts are often met with resistance from dominant legal actors. Many developing states struggle to enforce legal claims against multinational corporations and major powers, highlighting the ongoing imbalance in law and power in international society. To explore how regional legal systems in Latin America contribute to this debate, refer to this analysis on Latin American international law.
VI. International Courts and Power Dynamics
International courts play a crucial role in shaping law and power in international society, but their effectiveness is often limited by political influence. While these courts were designed to provide legal accountability and resolve disputes, enforcement remains a challenge when major powers refuse to comply with rulings. The International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System serve as prime examples of how legal mechanisms operate within a world dominated by power politics.
This section explores the strengths and limitations of these courts, examining how political pressure and state interests impact their effectiveness.
A. The International Criminal Court (ICC): Justice or Political Tool?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The ICC is often seen as a symbol of global justice, aiming to hold political and military leaders accountable for serious human rights violations. However, its legitimacy has been repeatedly questioned due to its focus on cases from weaker states while avoiding action against powerful nations.
One of the key criticisms of the ICC is its perceived bias against African states. Since its inception, most of its cases have targeted African leaders, leading to accusations that the court disproportionately prosecutes leaders from developing countries while avoiding investigations into Western or major-power crimes. The African Union (AU) has expressed frustration over what it sees as selective justice, even urging member states to withdraw from the ICC.
Additionally, major powers like the United States, China, and Russia refuse to recognize ICC jurisdiction. The U.S., despite initially supporting the court’s creation, later withdrew and even imposed sanctions on ICC officials when investigations threatened American interests, particularly regarding alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. Similarly, Russia and China have ignored ICC rulings, highlighting the court’s limited ability to enforce decisions against powerful states.
Despite these challenges, the ICC has achieved landmark convictions, such as the prosecution of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga and the conviction of former Liberian President Charles Taylor through a special tribunal. These cases demonstrate that international justice is possible, but only when political conditions allow for enforcement. The court’s future effectiveness will depend on its ability to overcome power imbalances and expand its legitimacy beyond selective prosecutions.
B. The International Court of Justice (ICJ): Legal Authority Without Enforcement Power
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often referred to as the World Court, serves as the primary judicial body of the United Nations, tasked with resolving disputes between states. Unlike the ICC, which prosecutes individuals, the ICJ handles cases between governments, addressing issues such as territorial disputes, human rights violations, and treaty interpretations.
The ICJ has issued significant rulings on sovereignty and human rights, such as:
The Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case, where the court ruled that the U.S. violated international law by supporting Contra rebels in Nicaragua. However, the U.S. ignored the ruling and withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction on related matters.
The Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) ruling, where the ICJ found that Serbia failed to prevent genocide in Srebrenica but stopped short of holding the state fully responsible for genocide.
These cases illustrate the ICJ’s biggest weakness: lack of enforcement power. While its decisions carry legal weight, compliance depends entirely on state cooperation. Major powers often ignore rulings when they conflict with national interests, reinforcing the notion that international law is only effective when states voluntarily accept legal constraints.
However, the ICJ remains an important forum for legal diplomacy. Countries that lack military or economic leverage can use the court to challenge violations of sovereignty and international agreements. Recent cases, such as Ukraine’s case against Russia for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention, highlight the court’s role in shaping legal narratives in geopolitical conflicts.
C. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System: Law vs. Economic Power
Unlike the ICC and ICJ, which focus on criminal and state disputes, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System governs international economic law, ensuring that trade rules are upheld. The WTO system has been one of the most successful enforcement mechanisms in international law, as economic incentives encourage compliance.
The dispute settlement process allows states to challenge trade violations and seek legal remedies. Countries that fail to comply with rulings can face retaliatory tariffs and trade restrictions, making enforcement more direct than in other international legal arenas.
However, even the WTO has been affected by power politics. The United States has blocked appointments to the WTO Appellate Body, effectively paralyzing the dispute resolution system. This move has weakened the WTO’s ability to enforce rulings, demonstrating how economic power can override legal structures. Similarly, China has faced criticism for exploiting loopholes in trade law while resisting WTO rulings that challenge its state-led economic policies.
Despite these setbacks, the WTO remains a critical player in regulating global trade. Countries rely on its legal framework to resolve disputes without resorting to economic warfare. However, the increasing use of economic sanctions outside WTO rules, particularly by the U.S. and EU, threatens the legal order of international trade.
D. The Role of Regional Courts in International Legal Order
Beyond global courts, regional legal bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) provide additional layers of legal enforcement. These courts have been more effective in holding states accountable for human rights violations due to stronger regional enforcement mechanisms.
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
The ECHR, under the Council of Europe, has successfully forced states to implement human rights reforms. Countries that violate ECHR rulings face political and economic consequences, making it one of the most powerful human rights courts. However, Russia withdrew from the ECHR in 2022, further demonstrating how major powers resist legal constraints.
2. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR)
The IACHR has been instrumental in advancing human rights protections in Latin America. It has ruled against state abuses in Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia, leading to policy changes. However, the U.S. has refused to fully recognize the court’s authority, limiting its reach.
3. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
The ACHPR faces significant challenges due to lack of state cooperation. While it has issued landmark rulings on political repression, enforcement remains weak because many African governments resist external legal oversight.
Regional courts demonstrate that law can be enforced when political and economic incentives align. However, their success depends on regional cooperation, which remains fragile in many parts of the world.
VII. Challenges to the Legitimacy and Enforcement of International Law
The effectiveness of law and power in international society is often questioned due to its inconsistent enforcement and perceived bias in application. While international law provides a framework for regulating state behavior, its legitimacy is frequently challenged by selective enforcement, geopolitical manipulation, and the growing influence of non-state actors. These challenges weaken trust in the legal system, raising concerns about its ability to deliver justice and maintain global order.
This section examines key obstacles to international law’s legitimacy and enforcement, including the problem of selective application, the role of non-state actors, and the difficulty of adapting to a multipolar world.
A. The Problem of Selective Enforcement
One of the most significant criticisms of international law is that it is applied unevenly, often favoring powerful states while punishing weaker ones. This selective enforcement undermines its credibility and reinforces the perception that international law is a tool of political convenience rather than a neutral system of justice.
1. The Double Standards in Military Interventions
The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea illustrate how powerful states often bypass legal constraints when it serves their interests. The U.S. justified its Iraq intervention on claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), despite lacking explicit UN Security Council authorization. Similarly, Russia cited the protection of Russian-speaking populations to justify its annexation of Crimea, ignoring Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
In both cases, international legal mechanisms proved incapable of preventing or penalizing the actions of dominant military powers. Meanwhile, smaller states are often held accountable for violations through sanctions, military interventions, or legal proceedings—demonstrating the asymmetry in international law enforcement.
2. The Inconsistent Application of Human Rights Law
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has faced heavy criticism for its focus on African leaders while failing to pursue cases involving Western officials or leaders of major powers. While leaders from Sudan, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have been prosecuted for war crimes, alleged crimes by U.S. officials in Afghanistan or Israeli military actions in Palestinian territories remain largely unaddressed.
This selective prosecution has led some countries, particularly in Africa and Latin America, to question the court’s legitimacy. The African Union (AU) has even called for mass withdrawals from the ICC, citing its disproportionate focus on the continent. This criticism highlights the difficulty of maintaining legal impartiality when major geopolitical players exert influence over legal institutions.
3. The Power of Veto in the UN Security Council
The UN Security Council’s (UNSC) veto system is another major barrier to enforcing international law fairly. The five permanent members (the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., and France) have the ability to block resolutions, often preventing action against allies or themselves.
The U.S. frequently vetoes resolutions condemning Israeli policies in Palestine.
Russia and China veto resolutions addressing human rights abuses in Syria and Myanmar.
Western powers use legal justifications to impose sanctions but oppose similar measures against their allies.
The use of veto power undermines the UN’s ability to enforce international law, allowing major powers to act without consequences while restricting legal action against weaker states.
B. The Role of Non-State Actors in Shaping International Law
The increasing influence of non-state actors—such as multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, and advocacy groups—presents new challenges for international law enforcement. These actors often operate outside traditional legal frameworks, making accountability difficult.
1. The Legal Loopholes of Multinational Corporations
Corporations like Amazon, Apple, and Shell operate across multiple jurisdictions, often exploiting regulatory gaps to avoid compliance with international labor, tax, and environmental laws.
Shell has been accused of environmental damage in Nigeria, but legal efforts to hold it accountable have faced jurisdictional challenges.
Tech companies like Facebook and Google influence global privacy laws, yet enforcement mechanisms struggle to regulate them effectively across multiple countries.
Pharmaceutical companies control vaccine distribution, affecting global public health but operating with limited legal constraints.
International trade agreements and investment arbitration courts (such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID) often prioritize corporate interests over state sovereignty, further complicating legal oversight.
2. The Challenge of Regulating Transnational Terrorism
Terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram operate across multiple borders, making traditional legal enforcement mechanisms ineffective. The Geneva Conventions, designed to regulate war, primarily apply to state actors, leaving non-state militant groups in a legal gray zone.
The U.S. drone strike program has been criticized for bypassing legal due process in counterterrorism operations.
The UN has struggled to create a unified legal response to terrorism, as states define terrorism differently based on their national interests.
Legal challenges arise in prosecuting foreign fighters, as countries debate whether to strip citizenship or repatriate them for trial.
The legal ambiguity surrounding terrorism highlights the need for new legal frameworks to address security threats while maintaining human rights protections.
3. The Influence of NGOs and Advocacy Groups
While non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights groups play a crucial role in holding states accountable, they also face challenges in enforcing legal norms. Groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross document abuses, but their influence depends on state cooperation.
NGOs often struggle to access conflict zones, limiting their ability to provide evidence for legal cases.
Governments frequently discredit or ban NGOs, as seen in Russia’s crackdown on foreign-funded advocacy groups.
Whistleblowers and investigative journalists face legal threats, limiting transparency in international law enforcement.
Despite these challenges, advocacy groups play a key role in shaping public perception of legal issues and pressuring governments to comply with international law.
C. The Future of International Law in a Multipolar World
As the global balance of power shifts, the effectiveness of international law will depend on its ability to adapt to new geopolitical realities. The rise of China, India, and regional alliances presents both challenges and opportunities for a more inclusive legal system.
1. The Decline of U.S. and Western Legal Dominance
For much of the 20th century, Western powers dominated international law, shaping institutions such as the UN, ICC, and WTO. However, as China and India emerge as economic superpowers, new legal frameworks are being negotiated without Western leadership.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is creating alternative legal agreements, shifting influence away from the WTO and IMF.
BRICS nations are pushing for reforms in the UN and World Bank to increase representation for developing states.
Western dominance over human rights law is being challenged by alternative legal narratives, particularly in Asia and Africa.
2. Regional Legal Systems Gaining Influence
The growing role of regional courts and legal frameworks suggests that international law may become more decentralized in the future.
The African Union (AU) is expanding legal mechanisms for economic and human rights enforcement.
The ASEAN legal framework is developing regional trade and dispute resolution mechanisms.
The European Union continues to push for global regulatory leadership, particularly in climate and digital governance.
These developments indicate that international law is evolving beyond Western control, leading to new legal norms shaped by emerging powers.
VIII. Conclusion
The interplay between law and power in international society highlights the enduring struggle between legal principles and geopolitical realities. While international law aspires to regulate state behavior, maintain peace, and ensure justice, its enforcement remains inconsistent due to power imbalances, selective application, and the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms. As history has shown, international law is not an autonomous force but rather a reflection of global power structures, often shaped and manipulated by dominant states to serve their strategic interests.
International Law as an Instrument of Power
Throughout history, major powers have influenced the development and application of international law, using it both as a tool of legitimacy and control. The United States’ selective engagement with international legal institutions, China’s strategic legal diplomacy, and the European Union’s normative influence all demonstrate how states use legal frameworks to consolidate their positions in global affairs. However, these same powers often ignore legal constraints when they conflict with national interests, as seen in cases such as the 2003 Iraq War, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and economic sanctions regimes imposed by Western countries.
At the same time, international law has provided avenues for weaker states and non-state actors to challenge power asymmetries. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and regional legal institutions offer mechanisms for dispute resolution and accountability. Yet, major powers routinely undermine these institutions, either by refusing to recognize their jurisdiction or by obstructing legal enforcement through diplomatic and economic pressure. This selective compliance weakens the credibility of international law, making it appear more as an instrument of convenience rather than a universal standard.
Challenges and the Need for Reform
The future of international law faces several pressing challenges, including:
The lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, especially in cases involving powerful states.
The role of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, and advocacy groups, which operate beyond traditional legal frameworks.
The increasing fragmentation of international law, as regional legal systems and emerging powers reshape global governance outside Western-led institutions.
If international law is to remain relevant in an increasingly multipolar world, it must evolve beyond its traditional Western-centric structures and ensure greater inclusivity, fairness, and adaptability to modern challenges. This includes reforming global institutions, strengthening enforcement mechanisms, and addressing geopolitical double standards that undermine the legitimacy of the legal system.
The Future of Law and Power in International Society
Despite its shortcomings, international law remains a crucial component of global governance. It provides a framework for cooperation, conflict resolution, and accountability, even if enforcement is often politically constrained. As power dynamics continue to shift, the challenge for the international community is to strike a balance between legal norms and political realities, ensuring that international law functions not as a tool for the powerful but as a genuine mechanism for justice and stability.
The ultimate test for the future of international law will be its ability to adapt to a world where power is no longer concentrated in a few dominant states. As new actors reshape global legal norms, the question remains: Will international law become a truly universal system, or will it continue to serve the interests of the powerful? The answer will determine the role of law in shaping the next phase of international relations.
References
Primary Legal Sources
United Nations Charter (1945) – Available at www.un.org
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) – Available at www.icc-cpi.int
Geneva Conventions (1949) – Available at www.icrc.org
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) – Available at legal.un.org
UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq (2002-2003) – Available at www.un.org/securitycouncil
Permanent Court of Arbitration, South China Sea Arbitration (2016). Available at www.pca-cpa.org
Books and Academic Articles
Cassese, A. (2005). International Law. Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press.
Simpson, G. (2004). Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge University Press.
Anghie, A. (2005). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Tams, C. J. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Case Law and International Court Decisions
International Court of Justice (ICJ), Nicaragua v. United States (1986). Available at www.icj-cij.org
International Criminal Court (ICC), The Prosecutor v. Omar al-Bashir (2009). Available at www.icc-cpi.int
International Court of Justice (ICJ), Bosnia v. Serbia (2007). Available at www.icj-cij.org
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Selmouni v. France (1999). Available at www.echr.coe.int
Reports and Policy Papers
Human Rights Watch (2021). ICC and Global Justice: Challenges in Selective Prosecution. Available at www.hrw.org
Amnesty International (2022). Selective Justice: The Politics of International Law. Available at www.amnesty.org
International Crisis Group (2020). The Future of the UN Security Council and Legal Order. Available at www.crisisgroup.org
World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body Crisis Report (2021). Available at www.wto.org
Kommentare