Context

• The selection of South African jurist Navi Pillay for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize highlights the importance of international law amid growing authoritarianism and disregard for established legal norms.
• Her recognition symbolises a defence of human rights, international justice and accountability against the unchecked exercise of political power.
• The central challenge is not merely the declining authority of international law but also its transformation into an instrument serving authoritarian interests.
• Defending a fair and inclusive international legal order has therefore become essential.

The Decline of International Law

• The post-Second World War international order sought to prevent conflicts, protect human rights and regulate relations among states through common legal principles and institutions.
• However, continuing wars and geopolitical rivalries have weakened the prohibition on the use of force, a fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter.
• The rise of authoritarianism has also undermined international human rights law, contributing to violations of fundamental freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• The preference for the ambiguous expression rules-based order over international law raises concerns about the weakening of legally binding obligations.
• Donald Trump’s assertion that his personal morality could guide his actions instead of international law illustrates the danger of replacing established legal principles with individual political judgement.
• Such attitudes risk creating a world where power overrides law, undermining international stability and justice.

Authoritarian International Law

• Scholar Tom Ginsburg’s concept of authoritarian international law offers a deeper understanding of this crisis.
• Authoritarian leaders are not necessarily abandoning international law; instead, they seek to reshape it to protect their regimes and advance their political interests.
• The liberal international legal order emerged after the Second World War and expanded after the Cold War.
• Despite inconsistencies in its application, it institutionalised civil, political and human rights and established international organisations, courts and tribunals to regulate state behaviour.
• International judicialisation enabled disputes to be resolved through independent legal institutions rather than political negotiations alone.
• Authoritarian international law challenges these foundations by prioritising regime security, executive power and state sovereignty over individual rights and accountability.

A Scant Respect for Rights

• The growing influence of authoritarianism, including within liberal democracies, is changing the fundamental principles of international law.
• First, authoritarian governments treat international law as a tool for regime survival, often disregarding civil liberties and accountability when these threaten their political interests.
• Second, state sovereignty is increasingly invoked to resist international scrutiny. Although sovereignty protects national independence, it can also become a shield against accountability.
  • Israel’s rejection of criticism from United Nations human rights bodies on sovereign grounds illustrates this tension.
  • Sovereignty cannot automatically justify violations of international human rights obligations.
• Third, authoritarian states favour weak international organisations with limited independent authority, retaining maximum national control while minimising institutional autonomy.
  • The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation illustrates this preference for state-centred cooperation.
• Finally, authoritarian international law favours negotiations and quasi-judicial mechanisms over independent international adjudication.
• The backlash against the International Criminal Court (ICC) reflects resistance to institutions capable of holding powerful individuals accountable for serious international crimes.
• These developments threaten judicial independence, institutional credibility and equality before international law.

The Way Forward: The Need for a Fightback

• Navi Pillay represents an understanding of international law rooted in justice, equality, fairness and accountability.
• As chair of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, she led an inquiry that concluded Israel had committed genocide in Gaza.
• Israel strongly condemned the Nobel Committee’s decision, illustrating the political resistance surrounding international investigations.
• Her recognition reinforces the principle that individuals, including powerful political leaders, must be accountable under international law.
• Defending this vision requires coordinated action by international courts, civil society, academia and human rights organisations.
• These actors must protect judicial autonomy, support independent investigations, promote compliance with international judgments and challenge selective enforcement.
• The international community must also address the credibility deficit of the existing system.
• Consistent application of international law is essential because powerful states cannot demand compliance from others while avoiding accountability themselves.

Conclusion

• The crisis of international law reflects both declining compliance and a struggle over the values governing global affairs.
• Authoritarian international law subordinates legal institutions to political power, whereas a just international order prioritises human dignity, fundamental rights and accountability.
• Navi Pillay’s recognition symbolises the importance of defending these principles.
• However, meaningful progress requires collective action, stronger international institutions and equal accountability for all states.
• International law must remain an instrument of justice rather than domination.