Does International Law mean anything any more?
October 2025
Last week, the International Court of Justice (the principal judicial organ of the United Nations), in an advisory opinion, declared Israel to be in breach international law in preventing aid from being sent to Gasza. And this week, Danny Kruger MP, on behalf of Reform UK, declared that the requirement in the UK’s ministerial code to acknowledge international law in their decision-making would be dropped by any future Reform UK government. On the first point, the Israeli government of course denied the charges and the second is unlikely to happen, but they raise the question “How far is international law able to be enforced?”
Readers may recall, at the time of the Brexit negotiations, a particularly awkward point was resolved by evidently breaking international law. The then minister, one Brandon Lewis, claimed that it only broke international law “in a specific and limited way”, for which he received much ridicule, but is such a response arguable or merely dismissive?
International law is a vague concept, in that much of it is not regulated. Those aspects that are enshrined in treaties are binding (but only among signatory states), while some are no more than statements of principle (think migration). The case of Benjamin Netanyahu and the International Criminal Court reveals some of the problems – countries that have signed up to the Court are obliged to arrest him if he come under their jurisdiction, but he can move at will among non-signatory countries, and some signatories may consider it too much of a hot potato to intercept him. In his trips to Washington for example, he has to fly an inefficient route to avoid needing to overfly an unfriendly state.
So, is the law becoming meaningless? The current United States administration is set on removing and authority from the United Nations, which has largely been the means by which the laws have been enforced, and the collegiality that once existed on e.g. climate change, has largely gone. Even the EU has its own laws constantly flouted by member states (which are punished, but don’t care). But appeals are still made to the UN and other international arbitrators, in the absence of any better option.
Clearly, our expectations of governments’ probity have been too high. The ICJ’s judgements are binding, but they have no powers of enforcement and are dependent on the Security Council for any action (and the Council is subject to veto by any of the 5 permanent members).
Indifference
One might conclude that international law is like human rights law; important to have it, but, in the end, any state choosing to ignore its precepts will probably get away with it. What has changed maybe has been that states used to argue the their actions were within the law, whereas now they are indifferent as to how they are judged. It might be worth establishing a regime of specific sanctions for specific offences, which could be more plausibly mandatory. But, as Hobbes said, “Covenants without the sword are but words.”
AH
Danny Kruger is the MP for East Wiltshire who recently defected to Reform from the Conservatives.
Recent posts:
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 