The state of the world has never seemed more hopeless than at this point in time.
With the invasion of Ukraine entering its fourth year, the horrific genocide in Gaza continuing despite international efforts to mediate and the recent formation of Trump’s “Board of Peace”, a single question remains: is international law eroding? Let’s break it down.
Firstly, it is important to note that there is a difference between violations of international law and its erosion. There is no doubt that the current geopolitical climate of the world is in tatters. But, according to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) global risks report 2026, these crises, and subsequently the “erosion” of international law, comes as a result of sociological shifts in state behaviour. Multilateralism is in retreat, economic risks are intensifying, technological risks are growing, environmental concerns are being deprioritized and societies are on edge. The law isn’t changing, but the will to follow it is being suffocated by systemic risks.
As per the WEF’s 2026 report, we are entering an “age of competition”. As governments retreat from multilateral frameworks and cooperative mechanisms crumble, is it any wonder that stability is at its most fragile? In response to the WEF’s Global Risk Perception Survey for the year, 57 per cent of experts foresee outlooks over the next ten years as “stormy”. It is clear that the long-term stability, which is expectedly provided by international law, is often sacrificed for the sake of short-term survival.
For instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a textbook violation of Article 2(4) of the UN charter. However, when it came to enforcing international law, the UN Security Council was paralysed by the very veto power designed to prevent greater conflict. The inability of the Security Council to act has diminished its reputation as a mechanism of security and is considered by some critics to be merely theatre, one that fails to represent many regions of the world and abuses its veto power, as seen in its inability to act over the war in Ukraine and the genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Critics say the increasing use of veto power by the P5 is inhibiting its functionality, an accurate statement. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, since the founding of the Security Council, Russia has been the most frequent user of the veto power, blocking a total of 159 resolutions. The United States is not too far behind with a total of 93 vetos, the last one being used on June 4th, 2025, to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire and the lifting of restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, a clear example of nations using the veto to protect their allies from Security Council decisions, in this case Israel.
In South Africa’s genocide case against Israel (South Africa v Israel), the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures in 2024, and yet now in 2026, the harrowing genocide in Gaza continues. This speaks volumes on how inefficient judicial decisions really are in terms of stopping humanitarian crises on the ground. The continued hostilities against Palestinians show that while the law can “speak” perfectly well, it cannot command. International law exists, as seen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, its enforcement remains the Achilles’ heel of the legal system. The gap between judicial declarations and their enforcement in reality is stark. This is evidence of international law’s declining relevance in today’s world.
Further, what is more striking is Trump’s Board of Peace. Formally established in January, 2026, this “international organisation” led by the government of the United States with Trump as its chairman (who is surprised?) has stated its purpose as “promoting peacekeeping around the world”. Although, it is clear that the Board is more concerned with enforcing a new transactional global order than promoting peace. As Hugh Lovatt at the European Council on Foreign Affairs puts it, “Welcome to the America-First Trumpian world”.
To better understand this Board of Peace, Lovatt describes it as essentially a “Trump-owned US company” where all decisions flow from Trump, and influence from member states is bought through a membership fee of $1 billion. Although the Board was originally established following UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2803 as a mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza, its expansion into a global conflict resolution body (operating outside the UN framework) shows nothing but a calculated attempt to bypass the multilateral order of the world. Trump’s Board of Peace and the bypass of the UNSC are not anomalies, they are the logical outcomes of a world where geoeconomic influence has ultimately replaced the UN charter as the main driver of state behaviour.
The timing of this coincides perfectly with the shocking Venezuelan presidential kidnapping. A coincidence? I think not. This operation lays some foundation to the ultimate message that US power can be wielded without restraints or consequences, international or otherwise. This makes it clear that the US will absolutely wield force on its own terms, without UN support. But how does this look for the rest of the world? It represents a deep sense of dread fueled by the sad fact that we really are seeing an erosion of international law. However, to argue that the law is eroding is to imply that there was once a golden age of legal compliance with international law, which sadly isn’t the case. If we define “law” as a set of rules that aim to regulate the powerful, then it is safe to say that it never existed to begin with.
Some experts maintain that international law has always been a site of struggle rather than a truly effective set of laws. This is because it has never functioned as a domestic criminal legal system does. It lacks a centralized police force, relying instead on reputation, reciprocation, and the internalisation of norms by states. As Prof Louis Henkin observed: “almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law, almost all the time.” Furthermore, as stated in the WEF’s global risks report, “a contested multipolar landscape is emerging where confrontation is replacing collaboration, and trust–the currency of cooperation–is losing its value”. The violations that occur today, do so against a backdrop of treaties that remain functional. They are given the green light and let go without any consequences. In the case of the Board of Peace, the danger is not that it violates the law, the real danger is that it seeks to operate on its own terms by redefining what counts as law.
Currently, the state of the world is in shambles. International law is failing civilians in Gaza and Ukraine, and what has the international community really done to remedy any of it? Absolutely nothing. But, as we can see in the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinions on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the UN in the occupied Palestinian territories, the law, although not immediately enforceable, remains the only universal language through which we can name injustices and humanitarian atrocities. It is for this reason that international law still proves useful.
