By Fatou Bensouda & Sam Sasan Shoamanesh
Conceived in the long shadow of global devastation, the post–World War II order was constructed — imperfect yet purposeful — to shield humanity from a similar catastrophe. Today, that architecture trembles under mounting strains that threaten to splinter its very foundations.
The post-war architecture conceived to avert great-power conflict, institutionalise inter-state cooperation, and entrench human rights within binding international law is now under acute pressures. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, hyper-intensified zero-sum strategic rivalry, the fragmentation of long-standing alliances, and the brazen repudiation of established norms.
Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalised or instrumentalised for partisan ends. Foundational treaties are hollowed out or breached outright, compliance regimes weakened, and enforcement mechanisms rendered inert — leaving the post-war international system exposed to the very coercive power politics it was designed to contain. The result is a palpable drift toward a ‘force-based order’, where might displaces right, and power eclipses principle.
International orders do not suddenly unravel because of political declarations broadcast at podiums, nor because of the conduct of aberrant outliers. They collapse when those collectively entrusted with their stewardship neglect to properly defend them — when resolve gives way to timidity, principle is bartered for political expedience, and moral clarity is supplanted by double standards. The stakes could scarcely be higher.
Unless the international community acts with resolve to defend and modernise the international order — fortifying rather than constraining it, including by making it more representative and meaningfully inclusive—the global system will drift toward a far more volatile and perilous disequilibrium. In such a landscape, security becomes a transactional commodity, sovereignty a conditional privilege, and resort to armed conflict a normalised instrument of statecraft rather than symptoms of its shortcomings.
In 1943, as the tides of battle in the Second World War began to turn in favour of the Allied powers, US President Franklin D Roosevelt warned: “Unless the peace that follows recognises that the whole world is one neighbourhood, and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind.”
Today, that coveted peace is increasingly fragile. Roosevelt’s words thus resonate as both a warning and a call to action. Alas, we are a species cursed with a short memory — quick to forget yesterday’s lessons.
As the turmoil of the pre-war international order recede beyond living memory, we are edging ever closer to repeating our gravest mistakes, placing at risk the hard-won legacy of the past century. The UN Charter, too, is under threat – with serious repercussions for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The Charter enshrines the bedrock rule of the modern international order that no state may threaten or use force except in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorisation.
That peremptory norm — the foundation of the collective security architecture — is now visibly fraying. As raw power eclipses legal restraint, and the silence or equivocation of the many emboldens the few, the prohibition on force risks sliding from binding law into empty rhetoric. Almost overnight, threats of force and unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorisation appear to be hardening into the new normal. This shift should serve as a stark wake-up call — one that demands serious reflection and deep concern.
This drift into the twin perils of historical amnesia and regression must be reversed decisively in the name of preserving what relative peace and stability the extant international order still affords. Should we fail in this imperative, the balance of this century risks being shaped not by relative stability or progress, but by the relentless spectres of widespread misery, turmoil, and chaos — at scale.
The historical arc of international law is marked by significant milestones since the Peace of Westphalia, and the founding of the United Nations in 1945, followed by a plethora of international conventions and treaties. These legal instruments are also a promise to future generations that disputes, as a rule, ought to be resolved by law, not force, and that the dignity of all peoples must be protected.
Notably, international law has played a decisive role in preventing conflict and advancing accountability. The International Court of Justice — the UN’s highest judicial body — for its part, has successfully adjudicated numerous inter-state disputes, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms over hard power and military confrontation.
When it comes to holding perpetrators of atrocities to account, from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals, these innovations set historic precedents by prosecuting political and military leaders. These efforts paved the way for the International Criminal Court, which, as the world’s first permanent international criminal court, has carried the torch, and by its very existence sends a powerful message globally — namely, that mass atrocities as merely politics by other means must no longer receive a pass, that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that impunity can no longer be tolerated.
Thanks to this major development and fixed feature of the international legal architecture, individuals — regardless of rank, power or status — can be held criminally responsible for atrocity crimes, and if certain conditions are met, even for the crime of aggression (or the illegal use of armed force) — dubbed as the “supreme international crime” by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Together, they have indelibly helped shape a global ethos in which impunity is seen as increasingly repugnant demanding accountability, and the rights of victims are accorded rightful recognition.
The historic cultivation of these norms may be considered the crowning achievement in the evolution of international criminal justice. This normative transformation has not only awakened humanity’s consciousness regarding atrocities, but has also reshaped expectations of accountability for such grave crimes, and recast the very narrative and language with which we confront these vital questions.
These are hard-won advances — constructed brick by brick on the foundation of human suffering. However, they are neither inevitable nor permanent — they require constant vigilance and principled support.
Ironically, those very powers that once shaped and nurtured our global institutions now, at times, erode their integrity — whether by defiance, selective invocation, or the politicisation of justice. Thus, the edifice of collective restraint trembles, vulnerable to the machinations of those who prize unbridled power above principle.
To be sure, such regression diminishes the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, irrespective of size or influence. Never has the choice between upholding the rule of law or surrendering to the chaos of unfettered power carried such profound consequences — in the nuclear age, no less.
In this environment, smaller states and middle powers, in particular, cannot afford passivity. They must coordinate with strategic clarity and act with resolve to defend and reinforce a rules-based global system anchored in real and principled commitment to international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Perspective is important. The Western world, even when considered in whole, comprises about 11 to 15% of the global population; the remaining 85 to 89% of humanity resides beyond it.
In a century increasingly defined by multipolarity, the convergent interests of the so-called Global North and Global South in safeguarding peace and stability within — and one hopes beyond — their respective spheres of influence must rise above the complacencies and double standards that have long underwritten the status quo. International law cannot be invoked à la carte, nor enforced with expedient selectivity.
Indeed, perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition from ill-wishers but indifference and selective application. The contrasting global reactions to different theatres of conflict in the past decade alone lay bare the hypocrisy that undermines faith in the universality and effectiveness of international law.
It is through an unwavering commitment to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, and by steadfastly upholding international law and the independence of international courts, that can we hope to lay the foundations for a world that is truly stable, just, and at — relative —peace. Yet another grave assault on the very foundation of human rights advocacy lies in the entrenched ‘culture’ of convenient indignation and performative empathy. This pattern is not confined to particular states; it is equally perpetuated by self-interested or ideologically motivated actors — and, paradoxically, by some within the human rights community itself.
Just as questionable are those who brandish the language of human rights not as “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, but as a tactical instrument of lawfare deployed against political adversaries. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialise the suffering of victims but can also fuel and perpetuate the very conditions that enable even graver human rights abuses. Indeed, ‘beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.’
Such expedient outrage and hollow sympathy betray the plight of victims, and erode the credibility of the pursuit of justice. It is abhorrent to champion the cause of justice for some, while turning a blind eye to the suffering of others, or pervert the cause of justice through instrumentalisation of law in the service of Machiavellian politics.
When our compassion is contingent upon convenience or dictated by the fleeting spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray the fundamental, universal principle at the heart of human dignity. True advocacy demands courage — the resolve to uphold and apply the law equally and impartially, even when doing so is uncomfortable, unpopular, or personally costly. It is the discipline to defend rights not only when they align with powerful interests, or ‘tribal’ and prevailing sentiments but wherever justice demands it. The unequal application of international law endangers us all — for if one people can be left unprotected, then none of us are truly safe.
Finally, the legitimacy and potency of international justice are also fundamentally anchored in ethical leadership and an unwavering fidelity to principle. It is incumbent upon the stewards of international institutions, courts and tribunals to embody integrity, impartiality, and steadfast dedication to their mandates. When these ethical foundations are shaken or compromised, the repercussions are deep and lasting: public confidence disintegrates, victims suffer renewed injustice, adversaries are emboldened, and the quest for justice is dealt a blow—one that may never be fully remedied. The character and courage of those at the helm are not mere virtues, but the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of international justice stands.
Should we permit the foundations of international law to erode — whether through selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics—we invite the world to slip once more into the shadows of anarchy and chaos. We cannot yield to a world order defined by unchecked aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders under predation, and the unravelling of hard-won international norms. To acquiesce to such decline is to legitimise disorder as a governing principle — inviting instability, normalising coercion, and accelerating a descent into systematic violence. The cost would be borne by societies worldwide, in shattered security, fractured institutions, and immeasurable human suffering. It is our shared responsibility to avert this regression.
By steadfastly upholding international law, nations around the world do more than safeguard their own futures; they erect barriers against the reckless impulses of would-be aggressors, protecting all — including the aggressors themselves — from the dire consequences of unfettered conflict.
In the end, the vigilant preservation of international law and mutual respect among states stands as the last bastion against the descent into anarchy, grounding the vital architecture for the peaceful resolution of disputes, and ensuring that dignity, order, and hope may endure across nations. Though the trials and tribulations of our era may offer little reason for optimism, we must hold steadfast to hope and press onward with determination.
Indifference is not an option. Wilful blindness is complicity. In standing in firm defence of international law, we safeguard not only our own rights and those of our fellow human beings, but the very destiny of our civilisation and the enduring promise of humanity itself.
The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumphs — a beacon guiding our gradual rise from brute force toward greater order, justice, and civilisation. Whenever law bends to unrestrained power, chaos ensues, threatening our inalienable dignity and the foundations of our security. We must never allow the law to fall silent, for it stands as humanity’s foremost defender.
HE Fatou Bensouda is the High Commissioner of The Gambia to the United Kingdom, and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (2012-2021).
Sam Sasan Shoamanesh is the former Chef de Cabinet to HE Bensouda when she served as ICC Prosecutor.
