The contemporary international legal order is navigating a period of systemic friction—a profound tension between a state-centred past and an emerging, multi-layered future. As the world shifts toward 2026, a dangerous normative vacuum has appeared in the wake of this transition.
We see this instability in the 3 January 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro, an event that has reignited fierce debates over the boundaries of sovereignty versus international law enforcement. Simultaneously, the opening of the Palestinian Embassy in London (5 January 2026) and the fragile Gaza ceasefire overseen by the ‘Board of Peace’ signal a move toward non-traditional, technocratic governance models.
These transformations, alongside the continued humanitarian tolls of the Russia-Ukraine War (24 February 2022–Present) and the Israel-Gaza War (7 October 2023–Present), expose the structural vulnerabilities of our traditional frameworks.
Ultimately, these crises serve as a stark reminder that the international community must move beyond hegemonic rules and the suzerainty of a few powerful nations. The rising multipolar reality—characterised by the growing influence of the Global South and the institutional weight of the expanded BRICS+ (11 member countries, 2024)—demands a fundamental reimagining of the global legal architecture.
By modernising the sources of international law and moving past the legacy of the Cold War era (1947–1991), the international community can establish a framework for the well-being of present and future generations that truly upholds the rule of law.
Democratic Imperative in Global Governance
If there is a “golden rule” in global politics, it is that every state must respect sovereign equality, a principle explicitly enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter (1945). In contemporary global governance, states are obligated to uphold this principle by practising multilateralism through Track 1 diplomacy. This official level of engagement—characterised by high-level political dialogue and the formation of treaties—remains the bedrock of the international system. However, the core challenge is the persistent influence of Cold War mentalities, hegemonism, and protectionism.
By redefining sovereignty as a functional responsibility and acknowledging the sociological realities of an interconnected world, multilateralism can flourish once again in the “garden of the rule of law”—ensuring the global order finally reflects the actual distribution of power and the shared aspirations of humanity.
As a result, ongoing geopolitical tensions underline the peril of a return to “bloc politics” and the erosion of territorial integrity. This is particularly evident in the posture of full-fledged military alliances such as NATO (32 member countries, 1949), which continue to serve as a defensive pillar of Western security while confronting a world that is rapidly diversifying its power centres.
In a similar vein, the transition toward a multipolar world is reflected in the expansion of groups like BRICS+ (2024) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (10 member countries, 2001). These groups seek to challenge the unipolarity that defined the post-Cold War era. For too long, the global system functioned under a set of rules dictated by a small group of nations, often resulting in double standards that undermine the legitimacy of international institutions.
In the context of the Israel-Gaza War, the inconsistent application of International Humanitarian Law (1949) has raised serious concerns regarding the fairness of the global order. Ultimately, rules must not be coerced by a few upon the many; instead, every country, regardless of its geographical size, strength, or resources, must be an equal participant and decision-maker in global governance.
Building a Global Network for Civilisation Dialogue
True governance requires more than laws; it requires equality, mutual learning, and inclusiveness among civilisations. In our current climate of polarisation, cultural exchanges should exceed estrangement, and coexistence should transcend feelings of one-upmanship. The emergence of a multipolar reality means that Western-centric traditional models are no longer the sole standard for modernisation.
Regional organisations, such as ASEAN (10 member countries, 1967), have already demonstrated that alternative methods of consensus-building and non-interference can play an irreplaceable role in advancing economic progress.
These common ideals—peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom—represent the shared aspirations of humanity. States bear an obligation to remain open-minded in appreciating the values held by different civilisations, refraining from imposing specific models on others and avoiding the escalation of ideological confrontation.
To achieve this, nations must harness the relevance of history and culture to transform traditional values into modern legal standards. Building a global network for inter-civilisational dialogue is not a luxury; it is the essential path to advancing the progress of human civilisation within a cosmopolitan framework. However, this vision of inclusive governance is not a modern invention; rather, it is the natural evolution of a historical movement that sought to democratise the international order decades ago.
Bandung Spirit and Historical Foundations
The foundations for an inclusive legal order are not new concepts; they are rooted in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. In 1955, more than 20 Asian and African countries attended the Bandung Conference to propose 10 principles for handling state-to-state relations, advocating solidarity, friendship, and cooperation. The Non-Aligned Movement that arose in the 1960s adopted these as guiding principles, providing a prototype for how a multipolar world can function without falling into the traps of Great Power Competition.
These principles were further codified in major international legal instruments, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law (UNGA, 1970) and the Declaration on the Establishment of the New International Economic Order (UNGA, 1974). Over the past 70 years, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence have transcended both time and space. They provide a path toward the peaceful settlement of disputes, triumphing over obsolete, confrontational traits such as bloc politics and spheres of influence that lingered after the Cold War.
Modernising the Sources of International Law
Perhaps the most technical yet critical challenge lies in the “sources” of law. For decades, Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute has been the definitive list of where law originates: conventions, customs, and general principles. However, under the weight of modern global governance, this provision is increasingly viewed as a relic. The proliferating diversity of law-making processes—specifically through regional organisations and informal coalitions—is no longer adequately reflected in this traditional provision.
To remain effective, international law must supplement the ICJ Statute with the practice of powerful non-state actors through Track 2 diplomacy. This unofficial dialogue, led by academic, religious, and civil society leaders, creates the “soft law” and normative thinking that eventually inform official processes. The 5 January 2026 opening of the Palestinian Embassy in London offers empirical proof of this shift; rather than a standard state-to-state exchange, the inauguration was the culmination of years of persistent mediation and Track 2 pressure from civil society and academic coalitions.
This success provides a vital blueprint for navigating the current impasse in the Israel-Gaza War. While formal diplomacy has frequently stalled, Track 2 channels serve as essential laboratories for the peace process, allowing for the testing of technocratic solutions that traditional political channels are often too rigid to explore. Ultimately, acknowledging the role of non-state actors strengthens the international rule of law—preventing a dangerous legal vacuum and ensuring that the entities actually shaping our world are brought within a framework of legal accountability.
Reconceptualising Sovereignty and Rule of Law
There is a broad consensus among legal scholars that the international community must be governed by the rule of law to pursue stability and prevent the arbitrary exercise of power. As the ICJ noted in the 1949 Reparations for Injuries case, the development of the international legal order depends upon “close conformity to reality.” The ongoing Russia-Ukraine War demonstrates the inherent fragility of the system when major actors ignore these legal foundations.
In a multipolar world, the recognition of international legal personality must orient itself to changing sociological circumstances on the international scene. The legal order needs to bring all de facto powerful entities—including emerging regional powers and international governmental organisations—under the legal umbrella. If the system fails to do so, it reveals structural fragilities, as seen in the recent use of force against Venezuela in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Consequently, such instances necessitate a reconceptualised understanding of sovereignty as a form of equal protection. While states remain the primary actors, they are now engaged in a multi-layered scheme of governance in which the nation-state can no longer be characterised as primus inter pares (first among equals).
From Aspiration to Action
Ultimately, global governance and international law exist in a deep symbiosis; legal norms provide the legitimacy necessary for world peace in a burgeoning multipolar era. To ensure a resilient future, we must modernise the sources of law beyond the traditional confinement of the ICJ Statute to involve non-state actors and revitalise the principles of peaceful coexistence.
While formal amendment of the ICJ Statute is often gridlocked by the veto power of the P5 under Article 108 of the UN Charter, the path to reform lies in “non-amendment transformation.” As demonstrated by the landmark 2024 Pact for the Future, this transition occurs through the crystallisation of “instant custom”—the rapid formation of legal norms in response to global exigencies—and the practice of regional blocs, thereby creating a new normative consensus that bypasses formal stalemates.
By redefining sovereignty as a functional responsibility and acknowledging the sociological realities of an interconnected world, multilateralism can flourish once again in the “garden of the rule of law”—ensuring the global order finally reflects the actual distribution of power and the shared aspirations of humanity.
Dhakal is a BA LLB student at Kathmandu School of Law.
Comment