Do we still care about international law?

80 years ago, in November 1945, the Nuremberg trials began. It was a moment of global conviction that the crimes committed by the Nazis must not only never happen again, but must be punished.

As a journalist reporting on the trials said at the time “the world’s writ has run to Nuremberg, and justice awaits.”

1945 also marked the creation of the United Nations, and the International Court of Justice, designed to settle disputes between member states. A few years later, in 1949, the Geneva Conventions were revised to ensure the protection of civilians during war: a Coventry, or a Dresden, or a Leningrad, should not happen. 

In 1984 we saw the UN convention against torture, and, in the optimism of the post Cold War years, the creation of tribunals to prosecute war crimes, and the foundation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

So how are we doing in 2025? That’s the subject of Inside Geneva this week, where we ask whether this is the year we finally abandoned our commitment to international law.

I’m joined by Nico Krisch, professor of international law at Geneva’s Graduate Institute, Kasmira Jefford, editor in chief of Geneva Solutions, and our regular analyst Daniel Warner.

Remembering the Nuremberg trials, what are we to make of the latest US authored “peace plan” for Ukraine, which envisages an amnesty for all those suspected of committing war crimes?

What would the Nuremberg judges and lawyers from the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union make of such a proposal? Some of them had seen the horrors of the concentration camps first hand before swapping their uniforms for the wigs and robes of the court room.

What would they think of the fact that their successors, the judges and lawyers at the ICC, are now being sanctioned by the United States, for daring to indict Israel’s leaders over possible war crimes in Gaza?

It seems a tragic betrayal of the hope and determination of eight decades ago. Krisch tells Inside Geneva that he is worried that respect for international law is waning, suggesting that “if somebody today proposed to create an International Criminal Court, they would be laughed at.”

Never honoured

Before we rate 2025 as a terrible year for international law though, we should remember that these laws have always been broken. In the 1960s we saw carpet bombing of Vietnam, and the use of what is widely considered a chemical weapon; Agent Orange.

The 1970’s saw the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan, and the US support brutal juntas in Latin America, even helping to overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile.

The 1990’s saw the Rwandan genocide, and the slaughter, in a single day in 1995, of thousands of Bosnian Moslem men in Srebrenica. But we did have international tribunals for both those two horrors, a sign Jefford tells us, that “When your government is not there to uphold your rights, international law is that safety net…that there are these other sets of rules that can help right wrongs, and bring about some form of justice as well.”

And Krisch believes that part of many people’s concern that international law is being flouted more than ever is our own increased awareness of it. ‘‘There’s a different expectation, a different hope around international law I think today. We have many rules today that are much more ambitious than they used to be.”

As ever, our analyst Daniel Warner is more sceptical, pointing in particular to the way in which indicted war criminals (who also happen to be leaders of their countries) are able to travel freely, and are welcomed into the highest offices.

“You can give me all the justices saying X about Gaza, about Netanyahu. All the decisions of the International Criminal Court. Show me the results. Show me when Putin comes to Alaska. Show me when Netanyahu comes to the White House.”

The disregard for international law, Warner suggests, is more blatant, and more frequent, than in previous years. “How much violation can there be before the treaty or the norm becomes invalid?  I think we’re seeing a level of violation that is extraordinary”.

In particular, our Inside Geneva guests are concerned that the US seems to have jettisoned even a pretence at respecting international law. The brief outcry over the attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela, which many lawyers believe are war crimes, has subsided.

Meanwhile, in American cities, people suspected of being undocumented migrants are being dragged from their schools, workplaces, and homes, and sent to detention centres where they are often denied contact with lawyers or relatives. An act which could constitute enforced disappearance.

Although the US never joined the International Criminal Court, what we are seeing now feels like something different, and to many, scary. If the country which likes to call itself the leader of the free world acts like this, how can we possibly hope to uphold those post 1945 standards?

The answer, Krisch suggests, may come from multiple smaller countries who are still committed. Treaties and conventions, rights and respect for humanity, will have to be honoured without the United States. And, Jefford argues, eventually even the big powers will see that flouting international law and going it alone is counter productive.$

“The way that certain leaders today are acting is not sustainable” she tells us. “Perhaps for a certain time they can get away with cherry picking bits of treaties that they like best, but at some point there’s going to be a reaction to that. It’s going to be climate change, it’s going to be massive natural disasters where we’re forced to work together.”

It’s a fascinating discussion, so tune in to Inside Geneva to hear it in full, and let us know what you think too – review us wherever you get your podcasts, and write to us with your comments at [e-mail]

vm