Can One Law Rule the World? Inside the Evolving System of International Justice

In a world divided by borders and political ideologies, the idea of a single law binding all nations might seem utopian. Every country has its own legal system -- shaped by history, culture, and governance -- but what happens when disputes cross frontiers? Is there a higher legal authority that governs nations, and can individuals ever approach it directly?

 

The answer lies in the complex web of international law -- a system that seeks to regulate relations between states and uphold global peace, justice, and cooperation.

 

The Origins of International Law

 

Unlike national laws, which are enacted by governments and enforced through courts or police, international law functions on a different foundation: mutual consent. There is no world parliament, no global government, and no international police force with universal authority. Instead, the system works because nations voluntarily agree to be bound by rules and principles that promote order and coexistence.

 

The concept of international law gained traction after the Second World War, when the world realised the cost of unrestrained nationalism. The creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 marked a turning point. Its Charter set out fundamental principles: sovereign equality, non-aggression, peaceful dispute resolution, and collective responsibility for maintaining peace. From then on, international law became a cornerstone of the new world order.

 

How International Law Works

 

International law derives from several key sources -- the most important being treaties, customs, and general principles recognised by civilised nations. These are codified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

 

Treaties are formal agreements between states that define rights and obligations on specific issues. The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change are among the most significant. When a country signs and ratifies a treaty, it assumes a legal duty to follow its terms.

 

Customary international law, meanwhile, develops through consistent state practice and a sense of legal obligation, a principle known as opinio juris. It covers universally accepted norms such as the prohibition of slavery, genocide, and torture. Even states that have not formally signed treaties on these subjects are expected to respect them.

 

Finally, general principles -- such as good faith, fairness, and justice -- provide guidance when neither treaty nor custom offers a clear answer. Together, these elements form the moral and legal scaffolding of the international order.

 

The United Nations and the Rule of Law Among Nations

 

The United Nations serves as both architect and guardian of international law. Its organs, particularly the Security Council, General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice, handle issues ranging from armed conflict to trade disputes.

 

The UN Security Council holds unique enforcement powers, including the authority to impose sanctions and authorise military action. The General Assembly, though lacking such powers, shapes global norms through resolutions and conventions. Yet, it is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that remains the symbol of global justice -- a forum where law, not force, decides the fate of nations.

 

What the International Court of Justice Does

 

The ICJ, headquartered in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It began operating in 1946, replacing the old Permanent Court of International Justice. Its mandate is twofold: to settle legal disputes between states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the UN or its specialised agencies.

 

Only sovereign states can appear before the ICJ -- not individuals, corporations, or private groups. This means that a person whose rights are violated abroad cannot file a case directly. Their government must take up the matter on their behalf. India’s case against Pakistan in 2017 over consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, for example, was filed by the Indian state, not by Jadhav himself.

 

The ICJ’s rulings are binding on the parties involved, though it has no independent enforcement arm. Compliance depends largely on political goodwill and international pressure. Nevertheless, its judgments carry immense moral and diplomatic weight, often influencing negotiations and setting precedents for future disputes.

 

The court also issues advisory opinions, which are not binding but clarify points of law. In 2024, for instance, it gave an opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, helping shape international debate on one of the world’s most protracted conflicts.

 

Where Individuals Fit In

 

If individuals cannot approach the ICJ, can they ever seek justice at the international level? The answer lies in other global and regional mechanisms that have evolved over time.

 

The most prominent among them is the International Criminal Court (ICC), also based in The Hague. Unlike the ICJ, which deals with disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. Its creation in 2002 marked a major step towards holding even heads of state accountable for grave offences. In recent years, it has issued arrest warrants against political leaders -- including Russian President Vladimir Putin -- for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

 

Regional courts, too, have given individuals access to justice beyond their borders. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights allow citizens to file complaints against their own governments for human rights violations. These courts have played a vital role in strengthening global respect for human dignity and the rule of law.

 

Universal Jurisdiction: Crimes That Know No Borders

 

Some crimes are so grave that they are considered offences against all humanity. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, any country may prosecute such crimes, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the accused. Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and piracy fall under this category.

 

This principle ensures that perpetrators cannot escape justice simply by crossing borders or claiming immunity. Spain famously invoked it to investigate former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for human rights abuses committed decades earlier. Though politically sensitive, such cases demonstrate the expanding reach of international accountability.

 

The Limits of Global Law

 

Despite its noble ambitions, international law faces serious challenges. Enforcement remains its weakest link. The ICJ, for instance, cannot compel compliance with its judgments. Even UN Security Council resolutions are sometimes ignored when they clash with powerful national interests.

 

Critics also point to the selective application of international law. While smaller nations are often pressured to comply with rulings, major powers can evade accountability through vetoes or political influence. This imbalance fuels perceptions that international law serves the strong more than the just.

 

Furthermore, questions of sovereignty often complicate matters. Many states hesitate to surrender too much authority to international institutions, viewing them as potential intrusions into domestic affairs. Balancing national autonomy with global justice remains one of the thorniest dilemmas in international relations.

 

A System in Evolution

 

Despite its imperfections, international law continues to evolve in response to new global realities. Emerging fields such as cyber law, space law, and environmental law are reshaping the boundaries of state responsibility. Issues like data privacy, artificial intelligence, and climate change are now at the forefront of global legal discourse.

 

The growing role of international courts and the widening recognition of individual rights signal a gradual shift towards a more interconnected world -- one where law, rather than force, defines legitimacy.

 

The Larger Picture

 

There is no single law that binds all nations equally, yet a web of treaties, customs, and principles holds the global order together. The International Court of Justice may not be a world supreme court, but it stands as a reminder that even in an unequal world, law still matters.

 

While individuals cannot walk into its chambers seeking justice, the evolution of international institutions -- from the ICC to regional human rights courts -- shows that the idea of global accountability is no longer a dream. It is an unfinished but steadily advancing project, reflecting humanity’s ongoing struggle to ensure that justice, not power, rules the world.

 

For any enquiries please fill out this form, or contact info@thelawreporters.com and  Follow  The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels