View previous stories
	Why international law is still the world’s best defence by Fatou Bensouda, Sam Shoamanesh Former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court   Mar. 2026   Should we permit the foundations of international law to erode, the world would slip once more into anarchy and chaos.   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.   In 1943, as the tides of battle in World War II began to turn in favour of the Allied powers, United States 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.   The post-war architecture conceived to avert great-power conflict, institutionalise interstate cooperation, reduce hot wars, and entrench human rights within binding international law is now under acute pressures. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, hyperintensified zero-sum strategic rivalries and hegemonic power plays, the fragmentation of longstanding alliances, and the brazen repudiation of established norms.   Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalised or instrumentalised in the service of Machiavellian politics. 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 towards an unchecked “force-based order”, under which 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.   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.   The United Nations charter – one of the central instruments of the post-war legal infrastructure – is under threat. 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 the illegal use of force risks sliding from binding law into empty rhetoric.   Almost overnight, the threat of force – and even unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorisation or meaningful deliberation – has begun to crystallise into a disturbing new normal. This accelerating erosion of established norms is not a passing anomaly; it is a structural shift with profound implications for international peace and security.   Institutions of international law, which have played a decisive role in preventing conflict and advancing accountability are also threatened.   The International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – has successfully adjudicated numerous interstate disputes, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms over hard power and military confrontation.   Efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account – from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals – paved the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its creation in 2002 sent a powerful message 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.   The historic cultivation of these norms may be considered a crowning achievement as 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.   And yet, those very powers that once shaped, and at least on the surface, nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice, now blatantly erode their integrity—whether by defiance, selective invocation, or politicisation. 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 their size or influence.   Yet another grave assault on the very foundation of human rights advocacy lies in the entrenched “culture” of convenient indignation and performative empathy by states and self-serving and ideologically inclined actors alike.   Such expedient outrage and hollow sympathy erode the credibility of the pursuit of justice, undermining the universality of dignity for which we strive.   International law cannot be invoked à la carte, nor enforced with expedient selectivity.   Perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition from ill-wishers but indifference and arbitrary 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.   When our compassion is contingent upon political expedience, 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.   Just as questionable are those who conveniently 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, ancient wisdom bears counsel: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”. 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 as a whole, comprises about 11 to 15 percent of the global population; the remaining 85 to 89 percent 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.   True advocacy demands courage – 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 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.   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.   This is our clarion call: should we permit the foundations of international law to erode—whether through selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics—the world would 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, invite instability, normalise coercion, and accelerate 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.   Indifference is not an option. Wilful blindness is complicity. In standing in firm defence of international law, we are not only enforcing norms – we are shaping the trajectory of our civilisation and honouring the enduring promise of humanity itself.   The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumph – a beacon guiding our gradual rise from unbridled brute force towards greater order, justice, and civilisation. We must never allow the law to fall silent, for it stands as humanity’s foremost defender.   * Fatou Bensouda is the former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (2012-2021). Sam Sasan Shoamanesh served as Chef de Cabinet to Fatou Bensouda during her mandate as ICC Prosecutor.
	A crisis of respect for human rights by OHCHR, United Nations News   23 Feb. 2026   UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council:   "Human rights are under a full-scale attack around the world. The rule of law is being outmuscled by the rule of force. And this assault is not coming from the shadows. Or by surprise. It is happening in plain sight – and often led by those who hold the greatest power.   Around the world, human rights are being pushed back deliberately, strategically, and sometimes proudly. The consequences are devastating. Written in the lives of people who suffer twice: first from violence, oppression, or exclusion – and then again from the world’s indifference.   When human rights fall, everything else tumbles. Peace. Development. Social cohesion. Trust. Solidarity.   This is precisely why the tools of the UN Human Rights Council – such as the Special Rapporteurs, Special Procedures, investigative mechanisms, and the Universal Periodic Review –are essential.   And it is precisely why – as we mark the Council’s 20th anniversary – we also recognize it is more important than ever to translate geopolitical engagement into a path towards strengthening human rights everywhere.   Tomorrow, I shall address the UN Security Council on the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. It is more than past time to end the bloodshed.   I began this month speaking to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People about blatant violations of human rights, human dignity, and international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.   The current trajectory is stark, clear and purposeful: the two-State solution is being stripped away in broad daylight. The international community cannot allow this to happen.   And a few days ago, I was at the African Union Summit where Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Sahel and other crises were front and centre.   We are living in a world where mass suffering is excused away … where humans are used as bargaining chips … where international law is treated as a mere inconvenience.   Conflicts are multiplying and impunity has become a contagion. That is not due to a lack of knowledge, tools or institutions. It is the result of political choices. This crisis of respect for human rights does not stand alone. It mirrors and magnifies every other global fracture.   Humanitarian needs are exploding while funding collapses. Inequalities are widening at staggering speed. Countries are drowning in debt and despair. Climate chaos is accelerating.   And technology – especially artificial intelligence – is increasingly being used in ways that suppress rights, deepen inequality, and expose marginalized people to new forms of discrimination both online and offline.   Across every front, those who are already vulnerable are being pushed further to the margins. And human rights defenders are among the first to be silenced when they try to warn us.   In this coordinated offensive, human rights are the first casualty. We see it in a tightening grip on civic space. Journalists and activists jailed. NGOs shut down. Women’s rights rolled back. Children’s rights ignored. Persons with disabilities excluded. Democracies eroding.   The right of peaceful assembly crushed – and I condemn once again the recent violent repression of protests in Iran.   Migrants harassed, arrested and expelled with total disregard for their human rights and their humanity. Refugees scapegoated. LGBTIQ+ communities vilified. Minorities and indigenous peoples targeted. Religious communities attacked. Online spaces poisoned by disinformation and hate – resulting in real-world harm.   Human rights are not a slogan for good times. They are a duty at all times. And so we must stand up for them – and even when it is difficult, inconvenient, or costly. That requires action on three urgent fronts.   First, we must defend our shared foundations – without compromise. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the instruments of international human rights law are not a menu. Leaders cannot pick the parts they like and ignore the rest.   And human rights themselves are also not divisible. Economic rights, social rights, cultural rights, civil rights and political rights – these are inherent, universal, inalienable, and interdependent.   Human rights are not only what we defend – they are what lifts the world to a better place. When rights are upheld, people live more freely. Economies grow more fairly. Communities trust more deeply. And peace and stability take hold because dignity takes root.   Human rights are not an obstacle to progress – they are essential to progress. We have seen it time and again, all over the world. Where rights advance, conflict loses ground. Where justice strengthens, violent extremism weakens. Where equality expands, possibility explodes. Where freedom prevails, societies flourish.   So we must change course and let human dignity set the direction. By renewing our commitment to – and respect for – the rule of law at every level. By supporting the pivotal work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. By delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals. By accelerating climate action.   Human rights are not West or East, North or South. They are not a luxury – they are not negotiable. They are the foundation of a more peaceful and secure world".   Feb. 2026   United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk statement to the Human Rights Council (Extract):   "The use of force to resolve disputes between and within countries is becoming normalized. Inflammatory threats against sovereign nations are thrown about, with no regard to the fire they could ignite.   The laws of war are being brutally violated. Mass civilian suffering – from Sudan, to Gaza, to Ukraine, to Myanmar – is unfolding before our eyes.   The situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. Palestinians are still dying from Israeli fire, cold, hunger, and treatable diseases. The aid allowed in is not enough to meet the massive needs.   There are concerns over ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank, where Israel is accelerating efforts to consolidate unlawful annexation.   Tomorrow marks four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four interminable and agonizing years. Civilian casualties have soared, and Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure could amount to international crimes.   In Myanmar, five years after the military coup, the awful conflict is claiming even more civilian lives, and the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. The recent elections staged by the military have only deepened people’s despair.   Authorities in Iran have violently repressed mass protests with lethal force, killing thousands. Meanwhile, violence and tensions are resurging in South Sudan and Ethiopia.   In Sudan, there must be accountability for the war crimes and potential crimes against humanity committed by the Rapid Support Forces in El Fasher. Such atrocities must not be repeated in Kordofan or elsewhere. All those with influence need to act urgently to put an end to this destructive war.   Across too many violent conflicts today, health and aid workers, journalists are being targeted, in blatant violation of international law. These actions cannot be allowed to become the new normal.   States need to be persistent objectors to violations of the law – by pursuing accountability, and by clearly denouncing egregious crimes with consistency, and without exception.   Developments around the world point to a deeply worrying trend: domination and supremacy are making a comeback.   If we listen to the rhetoric of some leaders, what lurks behind it is a belief that they are above the law, and above the UN Charter.   They claim exceptional status, exceptional danger or exceptional moral judgement to pursue their own agenda at any cost. And why wouldn’t they try, when they are unlikely to face consequences?   They build and sustain systems that perpetuate inequalities within and between countries. Some weaponise their economic leverage. They spread disinformation to distract, silence and marginalize.   A tight clique of tech tycoons controls an outsize proportion of global information flows, distorting public debate, markets, and even governance systems.   Corporate and state interests ravage our environment, robbing the riches of the earth for their own gain.   But people are not watching all this from the sidelines. They are demanding their right to basic living conditions, to fair pay, to bodily autonomy, to self-determination, to be heard, to vote freely, and many other rights.   From Nepal to Madagascar, from Serbia to Peru and beyond, people are demanding equality and denouncing corruption. People are protesting war and injustice in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to act.   They see human rights as a practical force for good – and they are right. Human rights are anathema to supremacy: they are a direct challenge to those who seek and cling to power. That is what makes human rights radical, and that is what gives them force.   Human rights didn’t magically appear with the Universal Declaration on 10 December 1948. People have been seeking freedom and equality long before these principles were codified in national or international agreements.   In the late 1700s, enslaved people in modern-day Haiti rose up against colonial rule, in the name of racial equality. The American and French revolutions challenged unaccountable authority.   The Abolitionist movement was a rejection of the Transatlantic slave trade – the most brutal system of subjugation. In the early 1900s, women joined together to demand the right to vote. The fight for gender equality continues.   After the bloodshed of two World Wars and the Holocaust, the UN Charter reasserted faith in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.   The 20th century then ushered in a period of decolonization, which reaffirmed the right to self-determination. People mobilized to end racial segregation, for labour rights, and to protect the rights of LGBT people.   Mothers marched together to seek justice for their disappeared children, from Argentina to Sri Lanka to Syria. And young people raise their voices for climate justice.   Human rights are the thread that runs through all these movements. And we do not take their achievements for granted.   Tyranny will seize any chance and exploit any opening. We must keep standing up for human rights, in solidarity with each other.   When we come together, we wield more power than any autocrat or tech billionaire. The struggle for human rights can never be derailed by the whims of a handful of leaders with reactionary, supremacist agendas.   While some States are weakening the multilateral system, we need bolder and more joined-up responses. This means calling out violations of international law, regardless of the perpetrators. Too often, denouncing violations by one party is labelled as siding with the enemy. In reality, it is upholding universality, and the pursuit of justice for all.   We need to forge coalitions to champion what unites us, and uphold equality, dignity, and justice for all. Our future depends on our joint commitment to defend every person’s rights, every time, everywhere".   http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2026-02-23/secretary-generals-remarks-the-human-rights-council-delivered http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-opens-human-rights-council-peoples-pursuit http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-sudan-let-aid-and-keep-weapons-out http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-occupied-palestinian-territory-absence http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-afghanistan-must-end-persecution-women-and http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/letter-to-un-human-rights-council-members-on-atrocity-prevention-priorities-at-the-councils-61st-session/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories