In recent years, a dangerous claim has been heard with increasing frequency—namely, that international law has reached its limits. That it is no longer capable of influencing a world driven by geopolitical power, strategic interests, and political expediency. This is an observation that is gaining increasing traction in public discourse. But is it really international law that is failing to such a great extent, or is it those responsible for enforcing it who are failing?

International law has never been a utopian promise of a world without war, despite previous proclamations to that effect. Its fundamental rules were established in the wake of humanity’s greatest tragedies, not to make conflict impossible, but to limit the arbitrary exercise of power and to protect human dignity even in the darkest of times. The prohibition on the use of force, the protection of civilians, and the immunity of hospitals, schools, and humanitarian missions are not political choices. They are binding rules. These rules have not changed. What has changed is the willingness of states to apply them consistently.

The greatest challenge of our time is not the weakness of the law, but its selective application. When the same violations are condemned in one conflict but ignored in another, the impression is created that these principles are not universal but negotiable. That the substance of the law depends on geography, alliances, or strategic interests. This perception is perhaps more dangerous than the violation of the rules itself. For when the application of the law appears to be selective, trust in the very institutions called upon to defend it is undermined. And without trust, no legal system can function effectively.

What is truly at stake here is not just international relations. It concerns the very concept of governance. Every legal order, whether national or international, is based on the belief that rules are enforced regardless of who violates them. When this principle is abandoned, power replaces law, and trust is replaced by cynicism. History has shown that the greatest crises did not arise because rules existed, but because the rules ceased to be enforced. The problem, therefore, is not that international law has become outdated. The problem is that political will has weakened.

In times of peace, it is easy to invoke principles. The real test, however, comes when enforcing them carries a political cost. That is where the quality of leadership is judged. That is when it becomes clear whether values are steadfast principles or merely tools of political rhetoric. The world does not need less international law. It needs greater consistency in its enforcement. For the future of the international order will not be determined by how strong the rules become, but by whether leaders will have the courage to apply them without exception. Ultimately, the greatest threat to international law is not its violation. It is the moment when we cease to believe that it is worth defending.