2026 tests whether international law remains a method or becomes a mood. ICJ cases, AI regulation deadlines, sanctions ecosystems, climate litigation—all stress-testing whether procedural discipline survives political pressure.

Is international law fit for purpose? The Venezuela crisis forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about sovereignty, accountability, and whether the system can actually deliver justice when powerful actors ignore the rules and legal mechanisms fail.

International humanitarian law requires distinction, proportionality, and precaution, standards designed for human decision makers. But what happens when machines, not humans, identify targets? How do we assign responsibility when autonomous systems malfunction or misinterpret data? Most states accept that existing law applies, but its application is increasingly strained. Critics argue that autonomous weapons introduce an accountability vacuum with no clear answer for whether liability should fall on programmers, commanders, states, or the systems themselves.

Accusing Israel of special intent to destroy, when the state itself was the victim of attempted destruction, is ultimately perverse. The ICJ will consider, too, that the absence of special intent is strongly evidenced by Israel's specific actions in Gaza.

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 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.