Authored By: Sbongakonke
University of Zululand
Abstract
The Group of Twenty (G20) summit marked a pivotal moment in global governance and transformation of international law, not only because it includes wealthy countries that are committed to uplifting other developing countries and upholding equity, but as an important bespeak of how non-binding instruments can influence the course of international law. Although the G20 does not produce binding treaties, its course, declarations and policy framework increasingly contributes to shaping global policy on financial regulation, climate governance,sustainable development, and international economic cooperation. This article will investigate legal aspect of G20 through the lens of soft law, exploring how its outcome impacts the formation of customary international law, treaty practice and guide state behavior. By analyzing the G20’s structure and its interaction with other international institutions like UN, this article evaluates how the G20 soft law contributes to the evolution of modern international law.
Introduction
1.What is the G20?
The Group of Twenty (G20) is an international forum that brings together heads of States from the world’s major advanced and developing economies. It was established in 1999 in response to the global financial crisis that occurred in the wake of collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank, the G20 has since became a central plan of action for international economic cooperation. The G20 is made up of 21 members: South Africa, African Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cananda, China, European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Türkiye, UK and USA. The members present the world’s Gross Domestic Product, the world trade and around two-thirds of the world’s population.1 The G20 defines itself as “the premier forum for international economic cooperation” and this summit matters because it is made up of countries from both developed and emerging economies, while G7 is composed exclusively of highly industrialized states.2
Although G20 doesn’t create binding laws, its however sets the agenda for many of the world’s most pressing economic and political issues such as Global economic Growth and stability, Trade and investment, financial regulation, Climate Change and energy transitions, Tax cooperation and digital economy governance, Development and poverty reduction, and Health crisis and pandemic preparedness.3
G20 also works with major international institutions like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and the United Nations (UN).4 While its output is of soft law, they contribute significantly to the coordination of national policy and the improvement of global standards.
International law distinguishes between hard law which refers to legal obligations that are binding and enforceable through judicial mechanisms once they are signed by the parties involved, and soft law which consists of non-binding norms. Hard law includes treaties or agreements that bind leaders and countries internationally and are therefore obliged to act within the terms agreed upon.5 By contrast the term soft law refers to obligations like agreements, principles and declarations that are not binding. Its instruments are usually seen in international sphere. UN General Assembly resolutions are an example of soft law.6law Although soft law has existed for many years, scholars have not figured out why states even use soft. However, others have said that states may use soft laws to solve straightforward coordinating games in which the existence of a focal point is enough to generate compliance.7
Legal scholas on one hand have perceived soft law as not law at all, as Prosper Weil states, these obligations “are neither hard law nor soft law: they are simply not law at all” and scholas would agree that they are not simply politics either. The decisions of UN Human Rights Committee, and the rulings of international court of justice (ICJ), have shown the traits of quasi-legal character. However, it begs the question of what separates the quasi-legal from nonlegal.8
Some scholars alternatively use the term “soft law” to define weak or indeterminant provisions in a binding treaty, it is said to be more appropriate using this term when referring to the more hortatory or promotional language of certain treaty provisions.9
In Soft Law and the Global Financial system: Rulemaking in the Twenty-first century is much of a compromising nature as no state is obliged to perform. This system not only provides the mechanism of law making and standard setting for global financial markets but also provides a suitable framework for perfecting the regulation of the world’s most vital and volatile economic institutions.10
Soft Law and Customary International Law Formation
The Traditional and Morden approaches to customary international law has proved the soft law as not the appropriate instrument to govern the collaboration that involves many states, taken into consideration human rights and welfare are at stake, as it is not for leader’s personal benefits. Bangkok declaration by thirty-four Asian states in 1993 vies that most of non-western states vies asserted human rights customs as aspirational goals rather than enforceable obligations.11
Furthermore, other theorists characterize modern customs as soft law obligation that do not amount to law because of their “non-binding” nature. It is supported that norms that are honored in breach do not yield reliable predictions of future conduct and are likely to bring themselves into disrepute.12
However, soft law can gain legal recognition if the statements that are made during the summit influence expectations and behavior. International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Australia v France; New Zealand v France, 197413 held that unilateral declarations may create binding obligations if made publicly with the intention to be bound. Even though it is not a treaty of customary obligation, the court applied good faith to evaluate soft law and give legal status.
The G20 as a Soft Law Institution
The Absence of Binding Legal Status
The G20 has shown the traits of soft law as a result on its non-binding legal status. These summits have no binding rules about who is in which constituency countries can easily move from one constituency to another. Indonesia is the example, as it first joined the constituency headed by Italy in the 1950s and later moved to one comprising the Islamic countries of North Africa and Malaysia.14
Shifting the focus to legitimacy as it is one rationale given for disbanding or transforming the G20. It is said that international decisions with binding effects should be made after consulting those that will be affected. But the question is does the G20 make binding decisions? One would argue in that part that it does not.15 Can a participant or anybody be affected by a decision that is not binding? I would argue and say no because if I don’t want to be part of it, it has nothing to do with me. The G20 signals the willingness of economically powerful countries to cooperate on some issues to comply with pre-existing commitments. It is therefore the legitimacy of those organizations involved that must be examined.16
THE G20 SUMMIT LEGAL THEMES
Financial Regulation & Global Economic Governance
The G20’s Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI) has led to international efforts to promote financial inclusion.17 States make decisions on how they will support each other financially by setting financial regulations and standards for global economic governance.
The international Monetary Fund and World Bank have access to member countries’ progress in meeting financial inclusion targets. However, many states usually apply for financial inclusion without proper framework to determine whether they meet regulatory objectives. This makes little or no progress in the financial level of those countries, and it is because of non-binding laws that allow states to make unproper decisions. The courts uphold the enforcement of debt and sovereign immunity and the need for global framework to handle sovereign debt restructuring. The judgment in Argentina v NML Capital case allowed creditors to subpoena information on Argentina’s assets, this creates a fair insolvency process and deter those who do not follow rules.18
Climate Change & Sustainable development
Agreements for sustainable development are made via treaties at the international level. Such as the Paris agreement that was adopted on 12 December 2015 about its commitment to climate change and sustainable development. It agreed to implement measures that will contribute to the success of sustainable development.19 The judgment in the case of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs (2017) affirms that climate change impacts are mandatory and requires attention before authorization for projects with potentially significant emissions are provided.20
How G20 Soft Law influence Hard Law
The G20 Soft law acts as a forerunner to binding norms, and it influences hard law by acting as a preparatory phase for binding obligations and the development of Customary international law by incorporating non-binding commitments to encourage the legal integration of different states. Soft law has been the great instrument to influence Hard law which results in paving the way for rigorous regulation, incorporation of domestic laws and developing customary international law.
Furthermore, when determining the special legal relevance of soft law, the three aspects should be considered that prove soft law to be helpful: the immediate legal effects of soft law, its role as a constitutive element in the process of development of international law, and the relationship of soft law and rule of law in international relations.21 Soft law may have immediate legal effect in the field of good faith as a non-binding law and may provide help for purposive interpretation on international law. Put it in practice, for example the G20 summit 2025 that was help in Afrika shows a hint of goof faint as countries agreed on the means they each had hoping for success without the signing of binding treaties that will compel a state to act as agreed.
In the development of international law soft law plays a major role in evolution of legal orders as seen in (codification and progressive development of international law). While Hard law may need a lot of time for law makers to establish necessary laws, the existence of soft law allows the participating states to refer immediately to these norms, thus avoiding lengthy discussions necessitated by every law-making process.22 Soft law is thus said to be the result of a consultation process preceding legislation proper.
Critics of G20 Soft law
Soft Law has faced many criticisms because of its non-binding nature; it is said to undermine the seriousness of the event in question at that time. The G20 formally proclaimed itself the premier international institution to oversee global economic and financial system but the result shows institutional and legal-structural shortcomings: lack of mandate, opaque decision making and ineffective norm creation.23
The G20 would be in a powerful position to promote the global common good and make it prevail, but its nature has put it in a tough position. It has become the macrocosm of the European council, its members gather in high profile summits but each time they promise a comprehensive solution and fail to deliver, its parallels are remarkable.24
Suggestions for a way forward
Although the G20 uses soft law instruments, its influence in global governance has contributed significantly and benefited many states involved. To ensure that the G20 soft law continue and becomes more legitimate and improve the international law, the several constructive reforms must be considered such as transparency, accountability and formalizing G20 soft law into stronger Normative instruments.
Conclusion
The G20 summit illustrates the growing prominence of soft law as a regulatory force at the international level. Although it lacks the binding treaties authority, its influence is nevertheless significant: it shapes the expectations among nations and guides the agenda of formal institutions such as UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO. The G20 outcomes show that soft law can facilitate rapid cooperation between states in areas where binding treaty making is too slow.
However, the G20 lives with criticism, it raises concerns of lack of accountability and effectiveness where the promised commitments do not take place. The participating states can easily withdraw their promised commitments without fear of accountability; this undermines the credibility of the formal trusted institutions and the visioned success of the G20 summit.
Despite the challenges, the G20 has become a central instrument for evolution and improvement of international law. It has shown that the modern international legal system is not defined by binding treaties and customary international law but is increasingly hybrid and allows a breathing space and flexible for dynamic role.
Bibliography
Books
Dinah L. Shelton, Soft Law, in Handbook of international Law 3 (Roughtledge 2008) Kern Alexander, Global Financial regulation (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020).
Journal Articles
Andrew T. Guzman & Timothy L. Meyer, International Soft Law, 2 J. Legal Analysis 171 (2010).
Jim Chen, Soft Law and the Global Financial System: Rulemaking in the Twenty-First Century, 25 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 1561 (2011).
Anthea Roberts, Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation, 95 Am. J. Int’l L. 757 (2001).
Peter K. Yu, The G20 and Global Governance, 9 Glob. Pol’y 111 (2008).
Jan Wouters & Thomas Ramopoulos, The G20 and Global Economic Governance: Lessons from Multi-Level European Governance?, 15 J. Int’l Econ. L. 751 (2012).
Lorez A., Zobl R. & Thurer R., The Legitimacy of the G20 – A Critique Under International Law (2014).
III. Cases
Argentina v. NML Capital, 573 U.S. 134 (2014).
Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 253.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs, 2017 (6) SA 621 (CC) (S. Afr.).
Treaties & International Instruments
Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
Web Sources
G20, Frequently Asked Questions, G20.ORG, https://g20.org/resources/faqs/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2025).
eNCA, What Is the G20 and Why Does It Matter?, ENCA, https://www.enca.com
(last visited Nov. 26, 2025).
Reports & Institutional Sources
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Hard Law/Soft Law, paras. 18–20.
VII. Encyclopedias
Daniel Thürer, Soft Law, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2009).
1 G20, Frequently Asked Question, G20.ORG, https://g20.org/resources /faqs/ (las visited Nov. 26, 2025) 2Id. at para 2.
2.The hard law vs the soft law in the international law scope
3 eNCA, What is the G20 and Why Does It Matter? ENCA, at para 5
4Id. at para 7
5 Europe Center for constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Hard Law/Soft Law, para 18.
6Id. at para 20
7 Andrew T. Guzman & Timothy Meyer, international soft law, 2 I. Legal analysis 171 (2010).
8Id. at 175
9 Dinah L. Shelton, Soft Law in HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (Routledge Press), 3, 3-4, (2008).
10 Jim Chem, Soft Law and the Global Financial System: Rulemaking in the Twenty-First Century, 25 Emory int’l L Rev. 1561 (2011).
11 Anthea Roberts, Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law, 95 Am. J. Int’l L. 757, 761 (2001).
12 Id. at 762
13 Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), 1974 I.C.J. 253
14 Peter K. Yu, The G20 and Global Governance, 9 Global Pol’y 111, 130-131 (2008).
15 Id. at 133
16 Id. at 136
17 Kern Alexander, Global Financial Regulation 5, 9-10 (CUP 2020).
18 Argentina v NML Capital, 573 U.S. 134 (2014).
19 Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change, Dec. 12, T.I.A.S. NO. 16-1104, (2015)
20 Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2017 (6) SA 621 (CC) (SA Climate Case), (2017).
21 Daniel Thurer, Soft Law, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL), para 36 (2009)
22 Id. at 39
23 Lorez, A., Zobl, R., & Thurer, R. The legitimacy of the G20 – a critique under international law, 1, 2-3 (2014)
24 Jan Wouters & Thomas Ramopolos, The G20 and Global Economic Governance: Lessons from Multi Level European Governance?, 15 J. Int’l Econ. L. 751 (2012)
