What happened (the claim being rejected)

An opinion argues against the idea that international law is “dying” or has become irrelevant. The argument addresses the claim that international law no longer constrains states because contemporary conflicts and crises dominate headlines and because international institutions seem unable to stop major violations.

Background and earlier position

The opinion recognises the reasons behind the “international law is dying” narrative: wars and crises in places such as Ukraine and Gaza, instability in West Asia, and the perceived inability of international institutions to resolve or prevent serious breaches. It also notes a recurring pattern in public debate—major breaches appear more visible than everyday legal practice.

What changed now (why the debate is active now)

The international law debate stays active because international institutions face structural limits, and because power politics can dominate outcomes. The opinion says it is still too early to write the “obituary” because states continue to use international law and UN-related legal language when justifying and defending actions.

Related current affairs