The International Structure and its Impact on the Effectiveness of International Law: An Analysis of Selectivity in the Application of International Obligations and Norms

Abstract

Public international law, as a normative system grounded in peremptory norms, faces a structural challenge stemming from the absence of a central authority capable of enforcing its fundamental rules, such as the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. This study addresses the question of the extent to which international law can constrain the behavior of sovereign states within an anarchic international structure. The research adopts a comparative analytical methodology, integrating a legal approach with a structural analysis of international relations, in order to explain the discrepancies in the UN Security Council’s responses to major international crises since 2011, including Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

The findings reveal that the selective application of legal obligations reflects the structural nature of the international system, where major powers subordinate legal commitments to political considerations that serve their strategic interests.

The study shows that the effectiveness of international law lies at the heart of the tension between normative obligation (what ought to be) and structural political reality (what is).Nevertheless, international law remains an essential normative framework for regulating state behavior and maintaining order in international relations. The research concludes that strengthening the independence of the international legal system and its enforcement mechanisms is essential to ensure equality before the law and to limit the politicization of Security Council decisions.