Abstract

This article analyses the intricate link between international law and geopolitical conflicts, emphasising the contradiction between global power dynamics and established legal principles, such as the prohibition of force, self-determination, and sovereignty. It examines the foundational concepts of international law, highlighting their implementation and resistance throughout wars. This analysis examines the efficacy of pivotal international institutions, including the United Nations (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and International Criminal Court (ICC), in conflict resolution, emphasising how their effectiveness is often compromised by limitations in enforcement mechanisms and the dynamics of power politics. The essay illustrates how the principles of international law are often eclipsed by geopolitical tactics, using case studies on the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the South China Sea dispute. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the South China Sea dispute exemplify the enduring difficulties of implementing legal rules in political reality, whilst Russia’s activities in Ukraine highlight the tension between state sovereignty and strategic objectives. The article is on India's attitude to international law, emphasising a nuanced balance between strategic autonomy and compliance with legal standards. India promotes institutional change, particularly within the UN Security Council, to align with contemporary power dynamics and foster a rules-based international order. India's approach is pragmatic, as shown by its measured response to crises involving key allies or strategic interests, such as the South China Sea and the Russia-Ukraine situation. India's ability to manoeuvre within international law while safeguarding its national interests is shown by its strategic alliances and non-aligned stance. The paper concludes that international law, although capable of resolving peaceful disputes, is constrained by the selective compliance of strong governments and conflicting national interests. The conclusion asserts that the complexity of international disputes requires a pragmatic approach to global power dynamics and compliance with legal norms, exemplified by India's balanced but reformative position on international law.

Keywords