A newly published legal analysis by two international law scholars argues that the international legal system is facing a profound challenge to its credibility, particularly in relation to the ongoing genocidal war in Gaza. The study suggests that the way international law has been applied to this situation has intensified debate about whether global legal norms are enforced consistently or shaped by political interests.

The research was conducted by Kevin Crow, an associate professor of international law based in Kuala Lumpur, and Lina Lorenzoni-Escobar, a specialist in international economic law at a Colombian university. Their work examines the legal and political reactions to the devastation in Gaza since 2023, describing the crisis as one of the most consequential tests for the modern rules-based international order.

According to the study, Gaza has endured extensive destruction, a large civilian death toll and the near collapse of vital infrastructure. Hospitals, public services and basic living conditions have deteriorated sharply, leaving much of the population struggling to survive amid the ongoing genocidal war. Human rights organisations have repeatedly warned that the humanitarian situation has reached catastrophic levels and may involve serious breaches of international humanitarian law.

Despite the scale of the devastation, the report argues that international reactions have often been cautious and limited. Statements by governments and institutions have largely focused on calls for restraint and the protection of civilians, while attempts to pursue accountability for alleged violations have faced diplomatic hesitation and political pressure.

The authors contend that this pattern has strengthened perceptions around the world that international law is not always applied with the same determination. In their view, Gaza illustrates how confidence in the global legal framework can weaken when rules appear to be enforced firmly in some crises but interpreted more flexibly in others.

The report contrasts the response to the genocidal war in Gaza with the international reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In that case, governments swiftly imposed sanctions, international bodies initiated legal proceedings and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for senior Russian figures. The legal momentum surrounding Gaza, the study argues, has not followed the same trajectory.

For many observers, such differences raise questions about whether civilian lives are valued equally in all crises. The researchers warn that if international law continues to be perceived as selective, states may gradually lose faith in its authority, weakening the very system designed to safeguard human life and dignity.

The study concludes that rebuilding trust in the international legal order requires consistent enforcement of legal principles regardless of political alliances or geopolitical interests. Without such consistency, the authors caution, international law risks becoming a strategic instrument rather than a universal framework for justice.