1. International Law is not a Monolith
A recent piece on The Guardian conflates the crisis of one branch of international law—namely, international criminal justice—with the demise of the entire system.
Yes — it seems quite likely that the title of Linda Kinstler’s article was, at least playfully or ironically, echoing the R.E.M. song “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)”. The structure and rhythm are unmistakable, and the juxtaposition of apocalyptic tone with a kind of emotional detachment (“and I feel fine”) fits perfectly with the article’s central tension: the sense of collapse accompanied by resignation or inertia.
But international law is not a single institution nor a unified doctrine; it is a heterogeneous field comprising vastly different regimes: trade, investment, the environment, the law of the sea, space law, aviation, health, and so on.
Counterpoint: Even if the Security Council is deadlocked and the ICC faces selective enforcement, hundreds of bilateral investment treaties are enforced daily, and dispute resolution before ICSID, WTO panels, and UNCLOS tribunals continues to shape international behaviour.
2. The Cold War Era: an Age without International Law?
Kinstler suggests that today’s deadlocks render international law irrelevant. But what about the Cold War? The Security Council was paralyzed for decades by the U.S.-USSR rivalry, and yet international law did not disappear. On the contrary, many of its most important legal innovations—the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UNCLOS, outer space law—emerged precisely in that period.
Counterpoint: If law only “exists” when it is enforced against great powers, then international law has almost never existed. And yet, it has survived—and adapted—again and again.
3. Functional Regimes still Thrive
While international criminal law may be faltering, many other branches of international law remain highly operational and widely observed. These areas may not capture headlines, but they form the everyday machinery of international cooperation:
- Trade law: Despite the paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body, international trade continues to be governed by a dense web of WTO agreements and regional frameworks (e.g., CPTPP, RCEP, EU trade deals).
- Investment law: Thousands of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investor-state arbitration cases are regularly litigated before ICSID and UNCITRAL tribunals, creating a sophisticated corpus of legal doctrine and enforcement.
- Environmental law: Multilateral agreements such as the Paris Agreement, Convention on Biological Diversity, and Montreal Protocol continue to shape national regulation and cross-border policy coordination.
- Maritime law: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regulates vast portions of state conduct and dispute settlement over territorial waters, fisheries, and maritime delimitation.
- Consular and diplomatic law: The Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations are almost universally respected and routinely applied, even in moments of severe diplomatic crisis.
- Aviation and transport law: International civil aviation is governed by the Chicago Convention and ICAO regulations, ensuring safety, technical coordination, and dispute resolution across nearly every country.
- Telecommunications and space law, intellectual property, health law (e.g., International Health Regulations), and transboundary water management likewise rely on codified international frameworks and are frequently updated and implemented through functioning global institutions.
Counterpoint: These regimes are often technical and less politicized, but they form the infrastructure of international life. If international law were truly “dead,” these systems would collapse. Instead, they remain resilient and widely used—even by states that regularly challenge the authority of international criminal or humanitarian law.
4. Selectivity and Power Politics are not new
The article decries the inconsistency and politicization of enforcement—but this is not a recent corruption of an originally pure system. International law has always operated in the shadow of power. Even the Nuremberg Trials, often held up as a founding moment of global justice, were a form of victor’s justice with no jurisdiction over Allied crimes.
Counterpoint: The presence of selectivity and hypocrisy does not invalidate international law; rather, it reflects the structural reality of a decentralized, consent-based system among sovereigns.
5. Normative Power and Symbolic Capital Matter
Legal decisions may not stop tanks, but they frame narratives, shape diplomacy, and build legitimacy over time. Kinstler herself admits that ICJ statements may “mean something to future historians.” But that is not nothing. Law operates not only through coercion but also through authority, repetition, and internalization.
Counterpoint: No one expects constitutional courts to always stop violations; yet no one argues that domestic constitutional law is dead.
6. A Transformation, not a Collapse
The question is not whether international law is dying, but what kind of international law is emerging. Yes, we are witnessing a reconfiguration of legal orders in a post-unipolar world, with China, India, and the Global South asserting different visions of legal order. But this is not the end—it is the pluralization of international legality.
Counterpoint: What is waning is liberal internationalism, not international law itself. The new order may be less focused on human rights and more on sovereignty, but that is still international law—as they know it.
7. Crisis as opportunity
International law is reactive by nature: it evolves through crises. The refugee regime followed WWII; environmental law followed ecological disasters; the ICC followed Rwanda and the Balkans. Today’s geopolitical fragmentation may be painful—but it may also sow the seeds for a more equitable and multipolar international legal system.
Counterpoint: What we are seeing is a phase of recomposition—not extinction. International law is shedding some illusions but adapting to a more contested and diverse world.
An hyper-short Conclusion
“If this is the end of international law as we know it, then perhaps it is time to know it differently.”