Whenever people hear of the word, ‘law’, the common man is immediately filled with disgust and this sentiment is commonplace in multiple jurisdictions. No matter how robust a legal system is or how efficient its mechanisms are, one notorious case is enough to expose its loopholes. In the early 2000’s, the disgust of the public was directed at domestic legal systems. Interestingly, due to the Gaza war, people have increasingly grown aware of the international legal system too and are just as disillusioned with it.
One of the most significant problems that the international legal framework faces is enforcement. Unlike domestic legal systems, where institutions like the police and the judiciary compel compliance, international law has no centralized enforcement mechanism. Many ICJ judgements have gone unenforced simply because the losing party refused to comply. That said, it does not mean that a system whose roots stretch back thousands of years is without value, or that bodies like the United Nations are obsolete. Compliance in international law has never relied on a global police force — it relies on mutual consent, reciprocity, and the diplomatic and economic consequences states face when they break the rules. International law is imperative for a well-functioning world, because it ensures that global activities are carried out efficiently.
Suppose a Pakistani cargo ship sets sail from the Arabian Sea, with the final resort being the Port of Thessaloniki (Greece). Over the course of the voyage, several provisions of Maritime Law are triggered. Had it not been for this Maritime Legal architecture, the ship would be susceptible to piracy, and international trade, as we know it, would be impossible. The same holds true for aviation; international airspace is heavily regulated, and it is precisely this regulation, that allows flight transport to function smoothly across borders. What these examples reveal is a simple truth often missed in the "toothless UN" narrative: international law works exceptionally well wherever state interests are aligned and are unharmed. The trouble begins only when law and interest collide — when complying with a ruling means surrendering territory, military advantage, or political standing. That collision is precisely what is unfolding in Gaza and in Iran.
Compliance in international law has never relied on a global police force—it relies on mutual consent, reciprocity, and diplomatic and economic consequences.
In the Middle East, this fierce clash between law and interest is the most visible to the naked eye. Israel has consistently pursued a policy of sustained settlement expansion in the West Bank. The International Court of Justice, in its July 2024, advisory opinion, found that the aggressive expansionism of Israel in the West Bank amounts to annexation-in direct violation of the prohibition on acquiring territory by force. Israel rejects this characterization entirely, but the ruling stands as one of the clearest collisions on record between a state’s vested interest and an unambiguous legal finding. When that collision occurs, the law does not disappear-it simply has no one to enforce it.
The role of the United Nations is also questioned relentlessly by the public. And to some extent this grievance is justified. An organization which claims to be a harbinger of peace should not limit its role to issuing advisory notes and statements. But whatever the ground realities maybe, it is worth examining the legal powers delegated to the United Nations. Chapter VI and chapter VII of the UN charter are of particular importance here. Chapter VI is mainly concerned with the peaceful settlement of disputes, recommending measures like mediation, conciliation and arbitration before situation escalates further. Should it escalate regardless, Articles 41, 42 and 43 come into play: If an aggressive state continues its aggression, the United Nations can impose sanctions, economic or diplomatic, and under article 42, the security council may even authorize military action “by air, sea or land forces”, once it judges that measures of article 41 are insufficient.
The fundamental problem lies with its implementation. Article 42 depends entirely on Article 43, which requires member states to negotiate standing agreements placing forces permanently at the Council’s disposal. This intention was never executed and since 1945, every UN military deployment has been executed through special ad hoc agreements. Even setting that aside, any attempt to invoke Article 42 first requires a Security Council resolution which a single veto from any of the five permanent members can block outright. Every system has its flaws. The same holds true with international law. Yet, despite limitations, it remains a cornerstone in the global order. No state, regardless of the power of its diplomatic engine, ventures into the international arena without first calculating the legal implications of its actions.