International law is fighting for relevance. The outcome of this fight is likely to change the entire world’s political dynamics, which were shaped by World War II and sustained through the selective interpretation of the law by dominant countries.

In principle, international law should always have been relevant, if not paramount, in governing the relationships between all countries, large and small, to resolve conflicts before they turn into outright wars. It should also have worked to prevent a return to an era of exploitation that allowed Western colonialism practically to enslave the Global South for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, international law, which was in theory supposed to reflect global consensus, was hardly dedicated to peace or genuinely invested in the decolonisation of the South.

From the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the war on Libya and numerous other examples, past and present, the UN was often used as a platform for the strong to impose their will on the weak. And whenever smaller countries fought back collectively, as the UN General Assembly often does, those with veto power in the Security Council and military and economic leverage used their advantage to coerce the rest based on the maxim “might is right”.

It should, therefore, hardly be a surprise to see many intellectuals and politicians in the Global South arguing that, aside from paying lip service to peace, human rights and justice, international law has always been irrelevant.

This irrelevance was put on full display through 15 months of a relentless Israeli genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza that

© Middle East Monitor