The Hindu | Lead op-ed | May 30, 2026
Argues that selective compliance with international law by powerful states (ICJ rulings ignored, ICC warrants defied, UN Charter contraventions normalised, WTO appellate body sidelined) is eroding the rules-based international order — disadvantaging the Global South including India, and forcing a recalibration of how middle powers engage international institutions.
The Argument in One Line
International law is only as binding as the most powerful actors choose to make it — and when the US, Russia, China, and Israel openly defy ICJ/ICC/UN Charter obligations without consequence, the rules-based order shifts from a normative architecture to a tool of selective application — leaving Global South states like India to navigate by strategic autonomy rather than principled multilateralism.
What the Editorial Diagnoses
| Institution | Recent erosion |
|---|---|
| International Court of Justice (ICJ) | South Africa v Israel (Gaza genocide case) — provisional measures from January 2024 onward; Israel/US compliance contested |
| International Criminal Court (ICC) | Arrest warrants vs Israeli/Russian leaders; major powers refuse cooperation; US sanctions on ICC officials (2025) |
| UN Security Council | Veto deadlock — Russia (Ukraine), US (Gaza), China (Myanmar) — paralyses Chapter VII action |
| WTO Appellate Body | Defunct since December 11, 2019 (US blocking judge appointments); ~31 WTO members operate via Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA, April 2020) — India has not joined and questions its WTO-legitimacy |
| UNCLOS | China’s defiance of 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling (Philippines v China, South China Sea) |
| Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) | Erosion via US-Saudi/UAE deals; Iran nuclear standoff |
Why It Matters for India
India occupies a structurally ambiguous position:
| India’s location | Implication |
|---|---|
| Largest Global South democracy | Has historical investment in UN-system multilateralism (G77 co-founder, NAM original) |
| Non-permanent UNSC member (multiple terms; pushing for permanent seat) | Needs the UNSC to be legitimate |
| Treaty-respecting actor | India accepts ICJ compulsory jurisdiction (with reservations); is at ICJ in some cases |
| Strategic autonomy practitioner | Refuses to be bloc-captured; preserves Russia/Iran ties despite Western pressure |
| Beneficiary AND target of selective law | E.g., on Kashmir, Aksai Chin — India insists these are integral; faces Western/UNSC second-guessing |
The Editorial’s Key Claim
When international law becomes optional for the powerful, three consequences follow:
- Norm-erosion cascades — once one power defies, others follow (“if the US can ignore the ICJ, why must India accept WTO?”)
- Compliance asymmetry — middle and small states bear higher cost of compliance while major powers don’t.
- Institutional decay — ICJ rulings without compliance become advisory rather than binding; the architecture survives in form but not function.
What India Should Do — Editorial’s Implied Programme
| Track | Action |
|---|---|
| Principled position | Continue treaty fidelity (NPT-equivalent restraint, Geneva Conventions, IHR-2005); refuse to mirror powerful states’ defiance |
| Multilateral reform | Push UNSC reform (G4 with Japan, Germany, Brazil); WTO Appellate Body revival; ICJ/ICC accessibility |
| South-South diplomacy | Lead Global South coalitions on selective issues (climate finance, vaccine access, debt relief) |
| Hybrid order | Engage minilaterals (Quad, BRICS, SCO) while preserving UN-based multilateralism as default |
| Strategic autonomy | Reject bloc-capture; maintain Russia, Iran ties alongside US, Israel |
Counter-View
Realist scholars (Mearsheimer, Walt) argue that international law has always been epiphenomenal — what powerful states allow. The editorial’s premise of an earlier “golden age” of compliance is somewhat romantic. India’s response is therefore not to mourn a rules-based order that never fully existed but to build leverage within institutions — UNSC seat, WTO position, BRICS NDB, etc.
UPSC Hooks
| Paper | Angle |
|---|---|
| GS2 | International institutions; UN reform; ICJ; ICC; WTO; rules-based order; selective compliance; treaty law (VCLT) |
| GS4 | Ethics of state conduct; integrity vs realpolitik; institutional fidelity |
| Essay | “International law is what international politics allows it to be” — discuss with examples |
| Mains | “India’s foreign policy must balance principled multilateralism with strategic autonomy. Discuss with reference to the contemporary crisis of the rules-based international order.” |
Cross-Links
- South Africa v Israel ICJ case (Jan 2024 ongoing)
- ICC warrants on Netanyahu, Hamas leaders (Nov 2024)
- WTO Appellate Body suspension (Dec 2019)
- Permanent Court of Arbitration South China Sea (2016)
- Quad “Different Directions” editorial (May 30, 2026 — companion piece)
- VCLT Articles 60, 62 — material breach + fundamental change of circumstances (cited in India’s IWT abeyance, 2025)
Source: "International Law, Optional for Powerful States": The Crisis of the Rules-Based Order — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
