Laws without force

International law consists of a set of principles and rules governing relations among States. In other words, international relations are regulated by law. What happens when these legal norms are violated, that is, when an international wrongful act occurs? This is the “pathological” phase of relations between States. In such cases, the issue of responsibility arises—namely, the consequences of the wrongful act.

On this ground, particularly today, we encounter the difficulties of achieving concrete implementation, leading to skepticism regarding the willingness of States to comply with the obligations arising from international law. When a violation of the law occurs, the State must first cease the wrongful act and—where possible—restore the previous situation (status quo ante) and eliminate its effects. In international law, moreover, unlike domestic law, self-help is permitted; that is, the injured State may resort to the use of force to compel the offending State to comply with the norms. Only with the UN Charter (1945) did States agree to place limits on self-help, generally prohibiting the use of armed force. Only two exceptions are allowed: the use of force decided by the UN Security Council, and self-defense in response to an armed attack. In cases where it is not possible to restore the situation or eliminate its effects, State responsibility entails an obligation of reparation. This essentially consists of compensating for the damage caused by the international wrongful act. The case law is extensive. Wrongful acts committed by States may consist of violations of territorial sovereignty, diplomatic immunities, the law of the sea, airspace regulations, environmental obligations, or economic, commercial, and financial relations. The gravest and most extreme violations are represented by armed attacks and even acts of aggression, often accompanied by serious breaches of international humanitarian law governing armed conflicts (the so-called “international crimes”). Throughout these pages, we have often addressed the problem that afflicts our times: the tendency of some States to violate (even severely) international law and to replace law with the use of force. This situation results in serious consequences precisely in terms of the international responsibility of States.

There is also another dimension of responsibility—that of individuals. Normally, even when international wrongful acts are physically committed by natural persons, they give rise to the international responsibility of the State. Consider the case of a police officer arresting a diplomat. The officer will not be held accountable at the international level. Only the State is considered responsible. Similarly, the State will be responsible if a military aircraft pilot violates another State’s airspace. This general rule regarding State responsibility has only one exception: an individual who commits international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) is personally responsible “under international law.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is based precisely on the principle of the individual’s international criminal responsibility for such crimes. In light of this approach, the Court has recently issued arrest warrants for senior figures of the Russian Federation and the State of Israel. We now come to the heart of the problem. As we have repeatedly noted, the international community is an “unstructured” society, lacking organs. There is no world parliament, no world government, nor a compulsory and pre-established court. Most international norms are premised on the expectation that States—having created and accepted them—will comply with them voluntarily. In simple terms, the international community has no police officers or judges to ensure compliance with the law; there is no authority above States. This reality makes the affirmation of law more difficult and—as we have seen over the past three and a half years—highlights the tendency of some States (the “stronger” ones in political, military, and economic terms) to resort to force. On 24 February 2022 we witnessed Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, in violation of the obligation to respect the territorial integrity of a sovereign State, and the commission of international crimes. Starting on 7 October 2023, Hamas committed crimes against defenseless Israeli civilians, followed by Israel’s military response, marked by extremely serious and continuous violations of international humanitarian law.

The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have repeatedly ruled on these violations and the resulting responsibilities. But the States concerned ignore these rulings. With concern, we observe contemporary reality and the issue of responsibility in international law, and we remain haunted by the question posed in Canto XVI of Dante’s Purgatorio: “The laws exist, but who enforces them?”

NP October 2025
Edoardo Greppi