States possess the sovereign right to leave international agreements, yet the increasing frequency of treaty withdrawals signals a troubling shift in how governments approach their legal obligations. As political expediency overtakes strategic commitment, the foundations of international cooperation face unprecedented strain. This article examines the forces driving the withdrawal trend, its implications for global legal order, and potential safeguards to maintain the reliability that international law requires.

Law is meant to restrain power, not serve it. Yet across global politics, a different pattern is emerging: states, political movements, and even private actors are increasingly turning to courts not merely to resolve disputes, but to wage geopolitical battles by other means.

For us at the Legal Integrity Project, the principle is clear: the law must remain a forum for evidence, not a venue for strategy. When courts resist the pressures of political litigation and uphold disciplined legal reasoning, they safeguard not only justice, but the integrity of the entire international legal order.

The era of domestic courts as peripheral players in international law has ended. Across continents, national judges are asserting authority over global norms, extraterritorial conduct, and even military decisions taken far beyond their borders. Whether this transformation strengthens or destabilises the international legal order has become one of the most contentious debates in contemporary international law.

South Africa's landmark case at the International Court of Justice tests the boundaries of international law and strategic litigation. This analysis examines the formidable legal hurdles, the politics of treaty enforcement, and what the case means for organisations navigating reputational and compliance risk in an era where courts are becoming arenas for diplomatic contest.

The more courts that exist, the less enforceable the system becomes. We now live in a world where the same conflict can simultaneously constitute a war crime in The Hague, a lawful act of self-defence in one capital, and a human rights violation in Strasbourg- with no mechanism to reconcile these competing verdicts.

Diplomatic immunity, one of international law's oldest and most successful frameworks, faces a legitimacy crisis as high-profile abuses collide with contemporary demands for accountability. While the 1961 Vienna Convention remains essential for protecting diplomats from political persecution, reforming immunity without undermining the reciprocal protections that keep diplomats safe worldwide requires careful multilateral coordination—not unilateral action that could endanger envoys in hostile environments.

International law has always struggled with the crime of aggression. Theoretically, it stands as the gravest breach of international peace - the "supreme international crime" from which all others flow. In practice, however, it remains one of the most difficult offences to prosecute, hampered by narrow definitions, complex jurisdictional barriers, and explosive political sensitivities. Yet something is shifting. Across legislative chambers, university seminars, and advocacy networks, pressure is mounting to stretch the boundaries of aggression far beyond what its architects envisioned.

Public debate now uses the word “genocide” more readily than ever, often without reference to the strict legal criteria that define the crime. This article explores how the misuse of grave legal terminology - particularly the neglect of intent, evidentiary thresholds, and case law - threatens the credibility of international legal institutions. It argues that protecting the precision of the Genocide Convention is not about politics, but about safeguarding the rule of law itself.