International law is often presented as the moral foundation of the global order. Everyone talks about rules that bind all states, equality between nations, and respect for sovereignty.
In practice, however, judging by various international events - with a focus on Venezuela - it operates less as law and more as a language legitimising power.
Its primary weakness is structural. There is no global sovereign to enforce it. As Hobbes would say, where there is no higher authority, there is no law in any meaningful sense. The international system remains anarchic, and rules apply only so long as they do not conflict with the vital interests of the powerful.
History confirms this. Interventions without mandates, occupations that “freeze” for decades, resolutions that are never implemented - as seen in Cyprus, Palestine, and more recently Ukraine. When the powerful violate the law, the violation is called an “exception,” a “necessity,” or “self-defence.” When the weak break the rules, it is labelled an international crime. Law does not disappear, but it is applied selectively.
Carl Schmitt put it bluntly: a sovereign is he who decides when the rule is suspended. In the international system, that role belongs to the great powers. The UN Security Council, with its veto power, is merely the institutional reflection of this reality.
Yet international law is not entirely absent. It regulates daily relations and provides smaller states with a tool for argument and legitimisation. Even the powerful feel the need to pretend they respect it.
Perhaps the problem is not that international law is violated. The problem is that it is presented as neutral and fair, while in reality it reflects the balance of power. It does not fail; it merely reveals its true nature.