By Ayesha Asim
A quiet but growing frustration is emerging in contemporary international relations. It is increasingly referred to as ‘International Law Fatigue’, a condition in which states recognise the existence of international legal rules but question their authority due to arbitrary and selective application. This fatigue does not indicate a rejection of law in general. Rather, it indicates a growing scepticism about whether international law still serves as a truly protective framework, or if it has become subservient to power and political expedience.
International law was never intended to get rid of politics. Its purpose, as illustrated by the United Nations Charter, treaty obligations, and customary international law, was to balance political dominance by formulating common rules of conduct. For many states, particularly those with limited military or economic power, these rules provide some predictability and protection. Inconsistent application of legal norms causes more than just doctrinal damage. It undermines trust in the system as a whole. International law fatigue occurs when states demonstrate consistent compliance while similar obligations are ignored elsewhere with little consequence.
Consider the practice of recognising breakaway or contested territories. International law does not forbid recognition, but it embeds it within principles such as territorial integrity and non-intervention. When recognition decisions seem driven by strategic calculations rather than consistent legal criteria, it creates uncertainty. Smaller and medium-sized states, in particular, fear that the selective application of these norms could weaken the protection that maintains national and regional stability. Inconsistent precedents, even if quietly accepted, can accumulate over time, eroding confidence in legal frameworks that were meant to protect all states equally.
Treaties illustrate a similar pattern. Agreements codified under instruments like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are intended to be binding and performed in good faith. Yet when obligations are suspended or reinterpreted for political convenience, and international responses are slow or muted, trust begins to be shattered. States may start to ask themselves: if compliance carries cost but violations are tolerated for others, why adhere strictly to agreements? This perception fuels fatigue and can weaken the very rules designed to provide predictability.
At a structural level, international law relies on coercion than on shared expectations. States comply not because sanctions are guaranteed, but because predictable behaviour benefits everyone. When powerful actors appear insulted by consequences, these expectations reode. Legal norms then risk becoming rhetorical, invoked when convenient, ignored when inconvenient. The result is a system in which obligations are unevenly distributed, and the stability that law is meant to ensure begins to fray.
International law fatigue is not about rejecting norms. It is a warning sign. Persistent inconsistency pushes states towards unilateral actions, informal arrangements, or regional solutions, all of which carry higher risks of tension and conflict. Smaller and medium-sized states may feel particularly vulnerable, as the protection law is supposed to provide seems negotiable. In this environment, legal compliance is no longer just a duty; it has become a strategic calculation which weighs against the likelihood that others will follow suit.
The challenges are visible in multiple areas, from treaty compliance and humanitarian law to the regulation of contested territories. States that rely on law to stabilise borders, manage shared resources, or resolve disputes peacefully find that selective enforcement undermines these very protections. Over time, this can shift the focus from the law as a stabilising tool to law as a political instrument which can easily be invoked when convenient.
Yet international law fatigue is not inevitable. It is a symptom of selective application, uneven enforcement, and the perception that powerful actors can flout rules with little consequence. If addressed early, it can be managed through consistent adherence, transparent decision-making. And multilateral coordination. Upholding law consistently is not a moralistic exercise; it is a practical necessity for stability, predictability, and trust in international affairs.
The question facing the international community is whether states are willing to defend legal constraints even when doing so limits their political freedom. A rules-based order cannot survive if rules operate differently depending on influence, power, or strategic convenience. If legal norms are applied unevenly, trust diminishes, states may disengage, and international law risks being reduced to a language of convenience.
The stakes are not abstract. When the law is perceived as uneven or unreliable, disputes are more likely to be resolved through unilateral action or informal arrangements, increasing the risk of instability. Conversely, when states uphold shared norms consistently, even in politically inconvenient situations, law demonstrates its value not as an idealistic abstraction, but as a stabilising force.
Ultimately, international law fatigue is a warning, but it is also an opportunity. It reminds states and international organisations that the credibility of legal rules depends on consistent application. Law cannot be treated as optional or negotiable without undermining the very order it is meant to protect. For diplomats, policymakers, and practitioners, the challenge is clear: ensure that international law remains binding, consistent, and meaningful. Only then can the rules-based international system continue to provide the predictability and stability on which all states, large and small, depend.
About the author:
Ayesha Asim, PhD Scholar in law and LLM International Law Analyst, lecturer, and extensive experience in legal research, advisory, policy analysis and teaching.
