Throughout history, international law has been seen as a cornerstone of justice and a deterrent against global anarchy. Its primary aims—to uphold human rights, prevent war crimes, and provide mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution—are noble.
However, the system falters when its enforcement is inconsistent. How can international law remain a beacon of justice when it fails to protect the most vulnerable and instead bends to the will of political power?
Legal frameworks exist, and on paper, they are robust. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both guarantee the right to self-determination.
The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids collective punishment and mistreatment of civilians, while the Convention Against Torture (CAT) outlaws torture under all circumstances. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council is supposed to hold states accountable for violations. These structures are intended to uphold dignity and foster peace.
There have been moments where international law has proven effective. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda brought to justice those responsible for the 1994 genocide. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia held perpetrators of war crimes in Bosnia accountable. South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy was made possible in part by international legal and economic pressure. These examples show that with political will and global unity, international law can serve as a powerful instrument for justice.
But such cases are the exception rather than the norm. More often, international law is wielded selectively—applied rigorously in some instances, and ignored or distorted in others. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, has focused disproportionately on African leaders, while turning a blind eye to transgressions by major powers or their allies.
Global Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine
The swift global response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including immediate war crimes investigations, was in stark contrast to the silence surrounding Kashmir or Palestine, where decades of occupation, repression, and human rights abuses have been extensively documented but largely unaddressed.
The case of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is emblematic of this selective application. Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UNHRC highlight grave abuses in the region—extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and widespread torture.
The use of pellet guns, mass surveillance, and impunity granted by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) directly contravenes the Geneva Conventions and the ICCPR, which guarantee protection to civilians and the right to life. India has also failed to ratify the Convention Against Torture, thereby shielding itself from accountability for well-documented abuses.
AFSPA, in particular, has created a legal vacuum where rights cease to exist. It grants security forces sweeping powers, including the authority to shoot to kill, detain without trial, and suppress dissent without judicial scrutiny. Although the UPR mechanism recommends repealing such draconian laws, India has routinely dismissed these calls and barred UN human rights monitors from visiting Kashmir.
Pattern of Impunity
Palestine mirrors this pattern of impunity. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 guarantees Palestinian refugees the right to return. Resolutions 242 and 338 demand Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled Israel’s separation wall illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of the occupying power’s population into the occupied area—yet Israeli settlements continue to expand. Despite the ICC’s opening of war crimes investigations, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have resulted in civilian casualties without meaningful consequences.
Other cases further illustrate these double standards. In Syria, the use of chemical weapons violated international law, yet political gridlock at the Security Council hindered action. The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar prompted ICJ proceedings, but enforcement has been feeble. The UN also failed to act decisively in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur despite clear warnings and mounting evidence of atrocities.
Still, there are glimmers of hope. In Sierra Leone, the Special Court succeeded in prosecuting those responsible for civil war crimes. In Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers held Khmer Rouge leaders accountable. These cases show that international law can be effective—if the global community prioritises justice over geopolitical interests.
Human Rights in Palestine & Kashmir
For international law to regain credibility, it must be enforced universally, not selectively. Justice should not be a privilege of the powerful, but a right for all.
To that end, the United Nations should appoint a special envoy to monitor human rights in Kashmir and Palestine. The ICJ must assess the legal status of the ongoing violations in these regions. Regional bodies such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) must shed their passivity and press for justice.
If the world continues to treat international law as a political tool rather than a shield for the oppressed, its legitimacy will wither. The rule of law must be more than symbolic. To restore global faith in justice, legal frameworks must be upheld in all circumstances, regardless of political alliances.
Justice must not be selective. It must be universal. Anything less is not justice at all.
Have you liked the news article?