International law, in principle, should be the guiding force in shaping peaceful relations between countries, resolving conflicts before they escalate into wars, and ensuring a fair global system that upholds justice for all. For decades, it has been perceived as the cornerstone of global governance, rooted in the aftermath of World War II, and designed to ensure that the atrocities of war were never repeated. Yet, the reality today is far more disheartening. International law, while theoretically omnipresent, has struggled to maintain its relevance and authority, particularly when it challenges the interests of powerful nations.

The global political landscape was fundamentally reshaped after World War II. The defeat of the Axis powers and the establishment of the United Nations (UN) were intended to mark the beginning of a new era, where peace, human rights, and justice would be safeguarded by a universal set of laws. However, these lofty ideals have often been compromised by the selective application of international law. The great powers, particularly Western nations, have manipulated and bent the law to their advantage, prioritizing military and economic power over justice and equality.

International law has long been subordinate to the political and economic interests of the most influential countries, particularly the United States and its allies. The law, in theory, is supposed to operate impartially, ensuring that all nations, regardless of their size or military might, are held to the same standards. Unfortunately, this ideal has rarely materialized. The global South, particularly African, Asian, and Latin American countries, have often found themselves at the mercy of Western powers, whose influence over international institutions like the UN has led to the imposition of policies that benefit the powerful and neglect the oppressed.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya serve as stark examples of how international law has been manipulated to serve the interests of the few. Despite widespread opposition from the global community, the UN was often sidelined or used as a platform for justifying military interventions led by the US and its allies. The war in Iraq, for instance, was launched on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction, yet it left behind a devastated country and millions of lives destroyed. In these instances, international law was not a mechanism for peace but a tool for advancing the geopolitical ambitions of the powerful.

The imposition of such a system has not only harmed millions of innocent people, but it has also perpetuated the cycle of exploitation that began during the colonial era. The Global South, long subjected to Western colonialism and imperialism, continues to bear the brunt of this legal hypocrisy. Although international law was designed to prevent the re-emergence of colonial exploitation, it has failed to meaningfully address the inequalities and injustices that persist in the modern world.

The recent violence in Gaza has once again brought the question of international law to the forefront. In what can only be described as an act of genocidal violence, the Israeli government waged an all-out war against Gaza, resulting in the deaths and injuries of more than 160,000 people. Despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes and violations of international law, the international response has been tepid at best. The United Nations, though vocal in condemning the violence, has done little to hold Israel accountable for its actions.

However, in a rare and significant move, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) initiated an investigation into the potential genocide in Gaza, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two senior Israeli officials, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. These actions represent a glimmer of hope for those advocating for justice and accountability in the international arena. They suggest that, despite the entrenched dominance of powerful nations, international legal institutions are capable of taking action, even against the interests of their most influential members.

The international legal system, however, has not been without its challenges. The United States, which has long been an ally of Israel, has actively worked to shield the Israeli government from accountability. In 2002, the US Congress passed the Hague Invasion Act, a law that allowed the use of military force to protect American citizens or military personnel from prosecution by the ICC. This legislation, which was part of a broader effort to undermine the legitimacy of the ICC, highlights the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to protect its allies, even when they are guilty of gross human rights violations.

The US response to the ICC’s investigation into Israeli war crimes was predictable. Washington imposed sanctions on Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, for his role in pursuing charges against Israeli officials. The sanctions and the subsequent media campaign against Khan reveal the extent to which the US is willing to go to protect Israel from international scrutiny. The message is clear: justice for the oppressed is secondary to protecting the interests of powerful nations and their allies.

The situation in Gaza has exposed a deeper moral crisis within the international community. The governments of the West, particularly the US and Germany, have been quick to defend Israel and attack those who seek to hold it accountable. The February 18 raid by German police on the offices of the Junge Welt newspaper, in response to a speech by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, exemplifies this moral blindness. Albanese, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza, was targeted not for inciting violence, but for demanding accountability under international law. The German government’s decision to deploy riot police in such a heavy-handed manner raises serious questions about the commitment of Western nations to uphold basic democratic principles, let alone international law.

For the international legal system, the Gaza conflict represents both a crisis and an opportunity. The crisis lies in the failure of powerful nations to act in accordance with international law, perpetuating a system of impunity that allows atrocities to go unpunished. The opportunity, however, lies in the possibility of reform. If the international legal system can be restructured to prioritize justice for all, rather than the interests of the powerful, it could pave the way for a more equitable world.

The events in Gaza have demonstrated that the world is at a crossroads. The path forward will require the global community to confront the uncomfortable truth that international law has often been used to justify violence and oppression, rather than to prevent it. For many in the Global South, international law has become little more than a rhetorical tool, one that has been manipulated by the powerful to maintain the status quo. But for the rest of humanity, the Gaza conflict represents an opportunity to demand a world where justice trumps power, where accountability is universal, and where the law serves the interests of peace and human dignity, rather than the interests of the few.

The global outcry against Israel’s actions in Gaza is a powerful reminder that there are still people in every corner of the world who believe in the ideals of international law. It is time for those in positions of power to recognize that their actions have consequences, and that justice cannot be subordinated to military might. The fight for international law’s relevance is not over. If anything, it is just beginning. And in that fight lies the promise of a more just and peaceful world.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel