International law, ‘optional’ for powerful states

The fundamental premise of public international law is that it governs relations between sovereign states through consent and reciprocity. However, the article highlights a severe crisis in global governance, where the edifice of norms established over the past century is crumbling. The core principle of the UN Charter—the prohibition of the use of force and respect for territorial integrity—is being repeatedly violated by both major and regional powers. Examples like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US invasion of Iraq, and conflicts in Syria and Ethiopia demonstrate a return to 'might is right' politics. This erosion is exacerbated by the paralysis of the UN Security Council due to geopolitical rivalries and the limited jurisdiction of bodies like the International Criminal Court. From a UPSC perspective, this raises questions about the efficacy of multilateral institutions and the urgent need for structural reforms to ensure accountability and universal adherence to international law.

The piece provides a comprehensive overview of the widespread violations across various legal regimes, demonstrating that international law is increasingly treated as optional by powerful actors. It points to the systemic disregard for maritime law under UNCLOS in the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, threatening freedom of navigation. Furthermore, there are egregious breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights treaties, with documented atrocities, use of chemical weapons, and indiscriminate targeting of civilians in conflicts like Gaza, Yemen, and Tigray. The unravelling of crucial arms-control agreements, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signals a dangerous regression in global security architecture. Even environmental commitments, like the Paris Agreement, are failing due to a lack of binding enforcement mechanisms. For mains preparation, analyzing the structural weaknesses of these treaties—specifically their reliance on voluntary compliance and the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms—is crucial.

The article raises profound ethical questions about the nature of power, justice, and responsibility in international relations. It invokes Thucydides' maxim—'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must'—to illustrate a regression towards a Hobbesian state of nature (a theoretical state where life is 'nasty, brutish, and short' without an overarching authority). When powerful nations violate norms with impunity, they set a dangerous precedent, undermining the moral foundation of the rules-based order. This hypocrisy is evident when democratic states, meant to be champions of human rights, engage in controversial practices like offshore detention or torture. The ethical challenge lies in cultivating a global political culture that values restraint and collective well-being over narrow national interests. In the context of GS Paper 4, this relates to the application of ethical frameworks (like utilitarianism or deontology) to international affairs, and the moral imperative of states to uphold shared human values even when strategic interests dictate otherwise.