Where is International Law when you need it?

Impunity feels like the theme of the moment: leaders accused of atrocities that seem to travel freely, courts issue rulings that go nowhere, and sanctions that land on some states while others escape scrutiny entirely. It's tempting to conclude the rules-based order has simply stopped functioning. Between Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, and many conflicts that are barely reported on, justice seems like a distant ideal. Several heads of state seem to not even pretend to care about international law anymore. But is this true? We sat down with Dr. Javier García Olmedo, professor of international law at the University of Luxembourg, to separate what the law actually requires from what states actually do about it – and to ask whether the gap between the two is a sign of collapse, or something else entirely.

Lëtzebuerger Journal: When people say international law is breaking down, they mostly point to military interventions and the use of force. But other areas – trade, aviation, maritime law – seem to be holding up well. Is the erosion narrative accurate?

Dr. García Olmedo: I don't think "erosion" is the right framing. While the headlines of conflict make it feel like a collapse, the reality is that international law remains highly resilient. It has substantively developed over decades, and even in times of crisis, the International Court of Justice provides an essential benchmark for lawfulness. Historically, these dark moments have catalysed more treaty-making and rule development, not less. International law is not going to end.

The real question isn't whether the legal framework has broken down, but why states selectively choose when to comply with it. The central crisis today is a double standard. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a clear violation of the UN Charter and was met with immediate, unprecedented global sanctions. We do not see that same level of enforcement applied consistently when other powerful states face intense scrutiny for failing to comply with international law.

Ultimately, international law isn't eroding, it is being stress-tested. The problem today is not a lack of rules, but a lack of universal will to enforce them.

I think part of the disillusionment comes from a perceived lack of enforcement. Domestic law has police enforcement. There is no world police. Are we really talking about law, or does this make them more similar to guidelines, or a code of conduct?

Confusion arises when people look at conflicts in places like Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran and assume the law has no value because violations go unpunished. But the fact that a rule is breached does not mean it ceases to exist. The distinction between a norm existing and a norm being enforced is critical. International law is binding on states the same way domestic law is binding on individuals, states voluntarily signed these treaties and undertook these obligations. A failure of enforcement is ultimately a failure of political will and institutional design, not of the law itself.

Does this not mean there is de facto impunity for heads of state?

Yes, in practice, there seems to be what I would call de facto impunity, in particular for leaders of powerful states. But once again we must not confuse a failure of enforcement with an absence of law.

The UN and its experts routinely document and report on alleged violations of international law and demand accountability, particularly in relation to human rights and humanitarian law. But the UN Security Council is structurally paralysed by the veto, whether used by the United States, Russia, or China. Because of this, states must rely on tools like unilateral sanctions, which operate entirely outside the UN framework. So ultimately, it is a question of power and politics, which is why people sometimes conclude that international law has no value.

When a powerful leader defies a court or avoids travelling to escape arrest, that defiance doesn't erase the law. A court's judgment still strips a rogue state of its legal legitimacy. Impunity simply means a leader has managed to evade the real-world consequences of their actions, it does not make those actions legal.