The United States’ blatant disregard for international law has led many to call into question whether there is such a thing. Israel, Russia and other states violate the law ever more flagrantly and do so with impunity. If a law is broken willy-nilly and nothing is done about it, then at some point that law is held in abeyance. A core principle of international law, which no one questions, is: pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be obeyed).
International law has been recognised to exist in Europe certainly since the 14th century and possibly earlier. In the Hundred Years' War between France and England, despite many atrocities by both sides, they agreed on some limit to hostilities, such as not sinking each other’s fishing boats and that this agreement had the force of law.
In the 17th century, the Dutch legal scholar Grotius wrote On the War of Law and Peace. Like most academic books in Europe before the 18th century, it was written in Latin. Grotius said that international law existed and was binding on nations whether they accepted it or not.
Over time, more and more countries came to agree that there was such a thing as international law. People carefully drafted treaties to ensure conformity therewith. Some Europeans asserted that international law applied only to civilised nations, by which they usually meant white majority nations.
In the 1820s, the Congress of Vienna created the Vienna Convention on Diplomacy. This laid down immunity from prosecution and taxes for diplomats, exemption from visa charges for diplomats and their immediate relatives, and the extra-territoriality of diplomatic compounds. This was held to have the force of law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in the 1860s at The Hague in the Netherlands. The United States famously launched a lawsuit against the United Kingdom when the UK had sold arms to the Confederate rebels during the American Civil War. The USA won its case. There was no enforcement mechanism. The British Prime Minister Gladstone chose to pay the compensation ordered by the court to the United States. This was contentious in the UK, and many Britons said he ought to have disregarded the ruling of the court.
International law developed apace in the late 19th century with the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. These were held to have the force of law.
In 1919, the League of Nations was founded. The Council of the League of Nations consisted of four mighty countries (Britain, France, Italy and Japan). They said their rulings were based on international law. This was the precursor to the Security Council of the United Nations. Likewise, a United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) is international law. They are very difficult to get because they can be vetoed by any one of the permanent five (P5) members of the UN Security Council, and they require a majority of the 10 non-permanent members.
The United States, Israel and Russia vociferously assert their rights under international law. They often accuse other sovereign states of breaking international law. Russia has even claimed that the United Nations Charter gives it the right to invade Ukraine. Therefore, it is hard to argue that there is no international law.
An Israeli spokesman, when confronted with incontestable proof that Israel is breaking international law, will say that international law did not prevent October 7. This is an unmeritorious argument. All laws are broken, which is not to say that no laws exist. International law has not prevented Israel’s countless crimes against humanity. Before October 7, Israel had killed 100,000 Palestinians since the establishment of Israel in 1948.
International law is why international organisations are able to function. There is the Law of the Sea, which makes international maritime navigation possible. If a Greek captain sails a ship with a Filipino crew from China to Argentina and something happens in international waters, what law do they go by? The Law of the Sea provides answers to such questions.
There is international law which allows civil aviation to occur. If a Kazakh airline dry leases a plane from Paraguay to fly from Uzbekistan to Turkey and the passengers are all Japanese, whose law applies in the air? International law is all the more important in aviation and shipping, when sometimes it is disputed whose territorial waters or airspace a vessel or plane was in when an incident occurred.
An ongoing incident can last hours or days, and the ship or plane during that time may pass from the territory of one sovereign state to another. The exact timing of incidents is also in dispute in many cases. International finance and the SWIFT system rely on international law.
Powerful states have assailed international law on a level not seen since 1945. The precedents are troubling. Any strong state will say it dislikes the government of another and oust it and say this, as Russia and the USA do, then they are entitled to do likewise.
Russia, Israel and the USA claim to have launched preventative wars. A war to prevent war makes as much sense as peace to prevent peace. They claimed they were pre-empting something worse. In the case of Iran in 2026, the USA and Israel did not even say that Iran would attack them imminently. Totally bogus claims of self-defensive action are frequently propounded.
The United Kingdom has striven to ensure that its actions are in consonance with international law. The UK sought to give the Chagos Islands because there was a chance that the ICJ might rule against the United Kingdom regarding the islands. When the United States and Israel began to attack Iran in February 2026, the UK refused to allow the US Air Force to use British bases for bombing raids on Iran.
It was only after Iran allegedly attacked British bases on Cyprus that the British Prime Minister authorised the United States to use British bases, but only to destroy Iranian missiles. London’s argument was that this was permissible under international law.
International law is obeyed less than before. No law has ever had 100% compliance. The level, frequency and blatancy of the violation of international law is worrisome. It has not yet reached the stage where it can be said to be a dead letter.