International Law and Geopolitical Conflicts: Reconciling Legal Norms and Global Power Dynamics from India’s Perspective

I. Introduction

International law is sometimes seen as a set of regulations and principles governing the relations among states and other global entities, serving as a crucial framework for addressing geopolitical challenges. Geopolitical conflicts, characterised by the interplay of geography, politics, and power, often test the limits of international law. ²International law is increasingly used to regulate state behaviour, facilitate dispute resolution, and uphold global security. As a significant factor in global geopolitics, India offers a distinct perspective on the intersection of international law and geopolitical conflicts. India's stance on several international issues reveals its delicate equilibrium of national interests, regional security, and global legal frameworks, given its significant role in South Asia and growing influence in multilateral institutions.³ This article will analyse the principles of international law, their application and misuse in conflict scenarios, the challenges encountered by international institutions, and India's stance on these global issues, focussing on the interplay between international law and geopolitical conflicts.

II. Principles of international law in geopolitical conflicts

International law governs relations between states via treaties, customs, judicial decisions, and recognised principles. Central problems relevant to geopolitical conflicts include sovereignty and non-interference, which stipulate that no state should intervene in the internal affairs of another, a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter.⁴ Grounded on decolonisation, self-determination empowers people to choose their political stance and pursue development, often leading to conflict when it clashes with state territorial integrity. While several states justify military intervention citing national security or humanitarian aid, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force, hence restricting military action to self-defence or approval by the Security Council. Human rights law operates in both peacetime and wartime, focussing on fundamental rights, while humanitarian law, or international humanitarian law, seeks to safeguard civilians during conflict by regulating the methods and means of warfare.⁵ Numerous worldwide institutions uphold these principles. The maintenance of peace relies on the UN Security Council (UNSC), which encounters challenges due to rivalries and the veto power of its permanent members namely, the United States, Russia, China, France, and the UK, resulting in frequent delays in implementation.⁶ Despite its voluntary jurisdiction, which limits its scope, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the UN, adjudicates legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity; nevertheless, its effectiveness is undermined by certain countries' rejection of its authority and the politicisation of its cases in highly publicised conflicts.⁷

Geopolitical Conflicts and International Law: Analysing Case Studies

1. Conflicts between Russia and Ukraine:- Russia's ongoing struggle with Ukraine, which escalated with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022, is a clear violation of international legal rules. Russia's activities are widely condemned as infringements on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as contraventions of the UN Charter and norms of international law. Russia's justification of its actions, which includes the protection of Russian-speaking individuals and concerns over NATO's eastward expansion, underscores the tension between geopolitical strategy and national sovereignty. The UN General Assembly has consistently condemned the annexation of Crimea, while Russia's veto power has incapacitated the UNSC. The Russia-Ukraine conflict also highlights the limitations of global institutions. In 2022, the ICJ ordered that Russia cease military operations in Ukraine; but, the absence of enforcement mechanisms made compliance difficult. Despite political obstacles and jurisdictional limitations hindering its operations, the ICC is investigating potential war crimes in Ukraine.⁸

2. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:- The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rooted in issues of self-determination, territorial disputes, and human rights violations, is one of the most enduring geopolitical confrontations. International law is significantly important, particularly via UN resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights agreements. Despite the UN's adoption of many resolutions affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination and calling for the dismantling of Israeli settlements in occupied territories, the implementation of these decisions remains challenging. The United States, a major ally of Israel, has exploited its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to obstruct resolutions that criticise Israeli actions.⁹ The ICJ intervened in 2004, issuing an advisory opinion that deemed Israel's construction of the separation wall in the West Bank as contrary to international law. The discord illustrates the significant divergence between legal concepts and political realities.

3. Conflict in the South China Sea:- The South China Sea dispute is characterised by overlapping territorial claims by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. The region's significant maritime routes and wealth of natural resources make the war geopolitically important. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in favour of the Philippines, countering China's claims of historical rights to the South China Sea. China, however, dismissed the ruling, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.¹⁰ The South China Sea dispute illustrates the limitations of international arbitration in resolving geopolitical issues, particularly when major powers like as China disregard court outcomes.

III. Difficulties to the international law's effectiveness

Geopolitical disputes may reveal the supremacy of power politics over legal principles since robust states often disregard international law, confident in the awareness of the limited enforcement mechanisms. This is particularly evident with UNSC P5 members, who may employ veto power to avoid legal consequences. The increasing prevalence of unilateralism and the erosion of multilateral frameworks, shown by the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, further undermines the legitimacy of international institutions and marginalises international law in favour of strategic interests. The tension between state sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine remains a complex issue. While R2P permits involvement in cases of severe human rights abuses, it is often criticised as a pretext for powerful nations to endorse military actions, exemplified as NATO's 2011 incursion in Libya.¹¹ The lack of robust enforcement in international law, which depends on voluntary compliance, exacerbates these concerns. Restricted state involvement, particularly from influential nations, results in the ICJ and ICC facing challenges with selective enforcement, thus eroding the universality of international law.¹²

IV. India's strategy regarding international law and geopolitical conflicts

India's foreign policy has traditionally centred on non-alignment, a stance rooted in its colonial history and shaped by Jawaharlal Nehru, aimed at preserving strategic autonomy while fostering global peace and development.¹³ In recent years, India has evolved this approach by balancing non-alignment with active engagement in international institutions and strategic partnerships. Advocating for a rules-based international order, India emphasizes international law in conflict resolution but prioritizes national interests, as reflected in its cautious position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict to maintain ties with Russia, a long-standing ally. Similarly, in the South China Sea, though India has no territorial claims, it champions freedom of navigation and adherence to UNCLOS to support regional stability against China's expansive claims. India’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has also shifted, with strong defence and technology ties with Israel, yet maintaining support for a two-state solution based on peaceful dialogue. India’s commitment to multilateralism includes advocating for reforms in institutions like the UNSC for fairer global representation and participating in the BRICS, G20, and Quad to pragmatically uphold international norms and navigate geopolitical tensions.¹⁴

V. Conclusion

International law provides a legal framework for conflict resolution, state sovereignty, and humanitarian protection, therefore directing state conduct during geopolitical conflicts. The power dynamics of global politics might limit its effectiveness since major states may adhere to or disregard legal regulations based on strategic advantages. While essential for maintaining global order, organisations such as the UN, ICJ, and ICC have challenges in enforcement, especially for conflicts involving powerful nations. India's principles of non-alignment, strategic autonomy and endorsement of a rules-based international order shape its perspective on international law. India integrates pragmatic diplomacy, particularly in addressing matters such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the South China Sea, while adhering to international legal frameworks. Its need for a more equitable global system is shown by its demand for the reform of international institutions. The relationship between geopolitics and international law is complex since legislation provides regulations but does not always provide solutions to the most challenging global issues.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at Integral University, Lucknow, India.

2. E-International Relations, International Law, E-International Relations (Jan. 1, 2017), https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/01/international-law/ (accessed Oct. 30, 2024). ↩

3. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, India’s Geopolitics National Lab, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Asia (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://asia.fes.de/news/india-geopolitics-national-lab/. ↩

4. Introduction to International Law, What Convention (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.whatconvention.org/en/intro_il. ↩

5. International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law: Answers to Your Questions (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0703.pdf. ↩

6. Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder: The UN Security Council (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council. ↩

7. Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder: The Role of the International Criminal Court (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-icc. ↩

8. Ehsan Mohseni, Zainab M. Ibrahim, & Shahrzad B. Malekpour, The Effect of Environmental Policy on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa Region, 9 Eurasian Economic Review 353 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00219-9. ↩

9. United Nations Regional Information Centre, Israel-Palestine: The Role of International Justice, UNRIC (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://unric.org/en/israel-palestine-the-role-of-international-justice/. ↩

10. PCA Case No. 7, Permanent Court of Arbitration (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/. ↩

11. Global Responsibility to Protect, What is R2P?, Global R2P (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/. ↩

12. Security Council Press Statement on the Situation in the Middle East, U.N. Doc. SC/15171 (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15171.doc.htm. ↩

13. Indian Council of World Affairs, India at 75: A Journey of Progress and Challenges (accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://icwa.in/pdfs/INdia75%20Web.pdf. ↩

14. Anastasia Shesterinina, The BRICS Summit: Emerging Middle Powers vs. the G7 and G20, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Oct. 30, 2024), https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/brics-summit-emerging-middle-powers-g7-g20. ↩