Authored By: Gladness Destiny Mdlovu
The University of the Western Cape
Introduction
International law is founded on the principle that all states are equal and bound by common rules. Central to this system is the prohibition on the use of force under the Charter of the United Nations, which aims to maintain global peace and stability. However, recent developments suggest that these rules are increasingly shaped by political power rather than consistent legal application.
This article argues that international law is facing a crisis of legitimacy. While its rules remain formally intact, powerful states often ignore, reinterpret, or avoid them without consequence. Through an analysis of judicial decisions, contemporary conflicts, and geopolitical tensions involving the United States, South Africa, Palestine, Iran, and China, this article demonstrates that international law is increasingly influenced by power asymmetries rather than legal obligation.
The Legal Framework of the Prohibition on the Use of Force
Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use of force or threats against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.1 The only recognised exceptions are self-defence under Article 51 and action authorised by the United Nations Security Council. These principles are reinforced by the Declaration on Friendly Relations, which emphasises sovereign equality and non-intervention.2
Despite this clear framework, enforcement remains weak, as international law lacks a central authority capable of compelling compliance.
Law vs Power
The decision in Nicaragua v United States of America illustrates the tension between law and power. The International Court of Justice found that the United States had violated international law by supporting armed groups and interfering in Nicaragua’s sovereignty.3
However, the United States refused to comply and withdrew from the Court’s jurisdiction. This demonstrates that compliance with international law is often dependent on political will rather than legal obligations.
This structural weakness is not confined to the past. In January 2026, the United States conducted a military operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro. Legal experts widely condemned the operation as a violation of international law and the UN Charter.4
The intervention occurred without UN Security Council authorisation, did not meet the requirements for self-defence, and was justified primarily on domestic legal grounds rather than international law.
Scholars have described the operation as a “clear violation of the UN Charter” and even an “act of aggression.”5 Moreover, reports indicate that US officials considered it unnecessary to assess the operation’s legality under international law, focusing instead on domestic authority.6 This reflects a troubling pattern in which powerful states increasingly prioritise national legal frameworks over international obligations, effectively bypassing the global legal system.
Recent geopolitical developments also reflect similar patterns. States increasingly rely on broad interpretations of self-defence to justify military action without the approval of the Security Council. As Christine Gray explains, self-defence has been “expanded” to include preventive and pre-emptive actions, stretching its original meaning.7 This therefore undermines the clarity of Article 2(4) and weakens the prohibition on the use of force, which is increasingly shaped by competing political interests.
The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran further illustrate the erosion of international legal norms. Investigations by the United Nations indicate that actions by multiple parties in the conflict may violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. Legal experts argue that the initial US–Israeli strikes lacked a valid legal basis, as they were neither authorised by the Security Council nor justified by self-defence. Furthermore, retaliatory actions by Iran — particularly those targeting civilians — also constitute violations of international law. While investigations and condemnations occur, enforcement remains limited. This reflects what Martti Koskenniemi describes as the “indeterminacy” of international law, where rules exist but are shaped by political interpretation.8
A central challenge facing international law is its selective application. Powerful states can ignore judgements, withdraw from treaties, or block enforcement through political mechanisms. As James Crawford argues, the legitimacy of international law depends on consistent application, since selective compliance reduces it to a tool of political convenience.9
South Africa, Palestine, and Geopolitical Consequences
South Africa has recently asserted itself as a defender of international law, most notably through South Africa v Israel. This case reflects a commitment to legal accountability under the Genocide Convention.
This position has been reinforced by humanitarian actions. In late 2025, South Africa admitted over 100 Palestinian individuals under exceptional circumstances after their arrival at OR Tambo International Airport without proper documentation. Authorities investigated the situation as a possible coordinated displacement operation but ultimately allowed entry on humanitarian grounds.10
While framed legally and ethically, such actions contribute to South Africa being perceived — particularly by Israel and its allies — as politically aligned with Palestinian interests. This perception shifts disputes from legal forums into geopolitical tension.
This tension became more visible in the context of the G20 Summit, an international forum of the world’s major economies that coordinates global economic policy. In 2025, when South Africa hosted the summit, the United States declined to participate at leadership level amid growing diplomatic tensions.11
This is significant. Instead of engaging through international or multilateral institutions, a powerful state responded through political disengagement, illustrating that participation in global governance — and by extension, international law — remains selective.
South Africa, Trade Measures, and International Law
South Africa’s trade relations are governed by the World Trade Organisation and agreements such as GATT 1994.12 These instruments regulate non-discrimination and trade restrictions.
However, powerful states increasingly rely on national security justifications to impose trade barriers. In Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, the WTO confirmed that such justifications must be exercised in good faith.13
Despite this, enforcement remains weak, allowing powerful states to shape trade rules through political influence.
China and Strategic Compliance
China’s approach to international law illustrates how the system can be undermined through selective or strategic compliance. Although China has ratified numerous international agreements — to strengthen its global position and facilitate trade, particularly within the World Trade Organization — it remains cautious about binding commitments in areas such as sovereignty, national security, and human rights. By limiting its obligations through reservations and careful treaty design, China is able to appear compliant while avoiding meaningful legal constraints.14
In practice, China often complies with international law only when it aligns with its interests and resists it when it does not. A clear example is its rejection of the South China Sea arbitration ruling under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, despite being a party to the treaty.15 Similarly, tensions surrounding Hong Kong and territorial sovereignty demonstrate how legal obligations may be reinterpreted or disregarded when they conflict with state priorities. This approach reflects a broader pattern in which international law is treated as flexible rather than strictly binding.16
Recent tensions between the United States and China further highlight how powerful states use international law strategically. Ongoing trade disputes, tariffs, and technological restrictions show a “tit-for-tat” dynamic, where both sides justify their own conduct while accusing the other of breaching international rules.17 This reinforces the idea that international law is increasingly used as a tool of power and negotiation, rather than a neutral system of binding obligations.
Overall, such selective compliance undermines international law by weakening its authority, predictability, and universality. When powerful states choose when to comply and when to ignore rules, the system loses its effectiveness, contributing to the growing perception that international law is in crisis and shaped more by political interests than by legal principle.18
Critical Analysis
International law is undermined by three key structural weaknesses that shift it from a rule-based system to one shaped by power.
First, there is a lack of effective enforcement. International law relies largely on state consent and voluntary compliance, with no central authority to compel obedience.
Second, the veto power held by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council allows powerful states to block actions against themselves or their allies, preventing accountability.
Third, there is unequal application of the law: weaker states are more likely to face consequences, while powerful states can ignore or reinterpret legal rules without significant repercussions. The contrast is stark. The United Nations imposed wide-ranging sanctions against South Africa from 1962 to 1994 to dismantle the apartheid system, and South Africa was compelled to comply. Yet when the International Court of Justice found that the United States had violated international law by supporting armed groups and interfering in Nicaragua’s sovereignty, the United States simply withdrew from the Court’s jurisdiction, refusing accountability and blocking enforcement in the UN Security Council.
Together, these weaknesses enable states — especially powerful ones — to prioritise political and strategic interests over legal obligations, thereby undermining the effectiveness and legitimacy of international law.
Conclusion
International law continues to provide a framework for global order, but its effectiveness is undermined by selective compliance and geopolitical power. From the refusal to comply with court decisions to the use of economic and diplomatic pressure, powerful states demonstrate that legal rules are not applied equally.
South Africa’s reliance on international legal institutions highlights the importance of law in resolving disputes. However, the responses it has received illustrate a broader reality: international law is not collapsing, but it is being reshaped by power.
Without consistent enforcement and genuine commitment from all states, the system risks becoming symbolic rather than effective — a framework where rules exist, but power determines their application.
Reference(S):
1 Charter of the United Nations, arts 2(4), 51.
2 Declaration on Friendly Relations (UNGA Res 2625 (XXV), 1970).
3 Nicaragua v United States of America (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
4 “U.S. Action in Venezuela and the Limits of International Law,” Fordham International Law Journal Blog (2026).
5 See commentary on the 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela.
6 Hugo Lowell, “DoJ deemed it ‘unnecessary’ to conclude whether seizing Maduro violated international law, memo reveals,” The Guardian (14 January 2026).
7 Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force (4th edn, OUP 2018) 150.
8 Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (CUP 2005) 67.
9 James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019) 4.
10 News24, “Palestinian arrivals at OR Tambo raise concerns” (2025).
11 Reuters, “US declines participation in South Africa-hosted G20 amid tensions” (2025).
12 World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994).
13 Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (WT/DS512/R, 2019).
14 Jacques deLisle, “China’s Approach to International Law: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective” (2019) University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review.
15 South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China), PCA Case No 2013-19 (2016) Award; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982).
16 Anna Kent, China, the United Nations, and Human Rights (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
17 Chad P. Bown, “US–China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart” (Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2025).
18 Martti Koskenniemi, “The Politics of International Law” (1990) 1 European Journal of International Law 4.
Bibliography
Books
Cassese A, International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2005).
Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019).
Gray C, International Law and the Use of Force (4th edn, OUP 2018).
Kent A, China, the United Nations, and Human Rights (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia (CUP 2005).
Shaw MN, International Law (8th edn, CUP 2017).
Cases
Nicaragua v United States of America (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
South Africa v Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip) (ICJ, filed 29 December 2023).
South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China), PCA Case No 2013-19 (2016) Award.
Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit (WT/DS512/R, 2019).
Legislation and Treaties
Charter of the United Nations (1945).
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994).
Declaration on Friendly Relations (UNGA Res 2625 (XXV), 1970).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982).
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994).
Articles and Reports
Bown CP, “US–China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart” (Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2025).
deLisle J, “China’s Approach to International Law: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective” (2019) University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review.
Koskenniemi M, “The Politics of International Law” (1990) 1 European Journal of International Law 4.
Lowell H, “DoJ deemed it ‘unnecessary’ to conclude whether seizing Maduro violated international law, memo reveals,” The Guardian (14 January 2026).
News24, “Palestinian arrivals at OR Tambo raise concerns” (2025).
Reuters, “US declines participation in South Africa-hosted G20 amid tensions” (2025).
“U.S. Action in Venezuela and the Limits of International Law,” Fordham International Law Journal Blog (2026).
