The misleading language of ‘international law’

by Christian Vezilj

French President Emmanuel Macron recently asserted that the United States and Israel had “broken international law” in their strike against Iranian targets. This statement was delivered with the gravity of a legal verdict. It implied that a statute had been violated, that a crime had been committed, and that a punishment awaited.

However, this framing is misleading because it presupposes the existence of a comprehensive global legal system. In reality, there is no world legislature, no global police force, and no universally binding court with compulsory jurisdiction over sovereign nations. The term “international law” refers to a collection of treaties, agreements, understandings, and norms. Many of these were established in 1945 in a context that differs significantly from today.

The United Nations Charter, often cited as the foundation of international law, was drafted after World War II. Its authors envisioned a world of nation-states, conventional armies, and clearly defined borders. Modern terrorism—decentralized, ideological, transnational, and often state-sponsored—did not exist then. Also absent were proxy militias, cyber warfare, drone strikes, and non-state actors operating in many countries.

The Charter’s language reflects this older context. It includes broad prohibitions on the use of force and limited exceptions for self-defense. It assumes that conflicts happen between identifiable states.

Because the Charter is vague, states interpret its provisions differently. What counts as an “armed attack”? What is “imminent”? Can a nation strike a terrorist group in another country without that country’s consent?

The Charter does not give clear answers. As a result, powerful states—including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, and Iran—justify their actions with their own interpretations of self-defense. Other states, often motivated by politics, accuse them of violating “international law.” This ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of the current system.

This context shows why Macron’s phrasing is misleading. When a leader says “international law was broken,” the public often thinks of a domestic legal violation. A rule is broken, a crime is committed, and punishment follows—at least in domestic law.

But at the international level, such enforcement mechanisms do not exist. A treaty violation does not lead to arrest. A dispute under the UN Charter does not end in a trial. The International Court of Justice cannot force a sovereign state to appear before it unless that state agrees. Most powerful nations have not done so.

With no enforcement, why do politicians keep using the term "international law," knowing it suggests an authority that doesn't exist?

Politicians use the phrase because it carries emotional weight and signals moral clarity. It makes one party seem lawful and the other lawless. This frames the issue and rallies public opinion. At the same time, it avoids explaining the complexities in treaties, norms, and geopolitics.

The rhetoric works well with audiences unfamiliar with the details of international relations. Many in the public take the phrase as proof of criminal conduct and respond emotionally rather than analytically. Political leaders know this. They use the language of law to create outrage, sympathy, or pressure—even if the legal basis is unclear or missing.

This rhetorical strategy is not new. States have used legal language to advance political objectives throughout modern history. Today, the world is highly interconnected. Information spreads rapidly, and emotions escalate quickly. A single claim about a violation of “international law” can shape global narratives within minutes, regardless of legal foundation.

The reality is simpler: sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves. The United Nations does not grant this right and cannot take it away. It is a basic part of sovereignty.

Threats may originate from states, terrorist groups, or proxy militias. Nations must protect their citizens, including taking preemptive action when needed. The United States and Israel face persistent threats from actors who declare harmful intent. They act on the right to self-defense. They do not need permission from an international court with no jurisdiction. Nor are they answerable to a global authority that does not exist.

While Macron’s statement may have served a political purpose, it lacked a substantive legal foundation. There is no enforceable international law in the sense commonly perceived by the public. Instead, there exist agreements, norms, and interpretations, which function as tools of diplomacy rather than instruments of justice. Although these mechanisms can influence state behavior, they cannot supersede the fundamental right of nations to defend themselves in an unpredictable and often dangerous international environment.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/03/the_misleading_language_of_international_law.html