By Ayman Okeil
In Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” the journalist concludes that America and the world seem to fall into the hands of people resembling “mafias.” Yet, even the mafia apparently has rules, customs, and laws governing its actions at times. As I followed the events and the interventions of nations calling upon the United Nations, I was constantly haunted by the question: Is it better to reform something, change it, or replace it? Or is it better to live without it? Laws may be applied selectively in many cases, but does that mean we should abandon them and live in a world without laws or governing rules? Especially when we don’t even have an alternative.
During the meetings I conducted in Geneva, some were surprised by the recourse of certain Arab nations attacked by Iran to the United Nations, to register their positions and retain the right to respond in messages directed to the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council. Similarly, Iran also resorted to the UN to assert that the military strikes by the U.S. and Israel, which began on February 28, 2026, violated international law and the UN Charter. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait stated during the general discussion of item two in the 61st session of the Human Rights Council that the Iranian attacks contradicted the UN Charter and violated the principle of state sovereignty and good neighborliness.
Those mockers of international law consider the recourse of these countries to these institutions in such troubled times to be a sign of helplessness and a waste of time. They see international law as pitiful, a source of ridicule, and without value or impact. I often wondered what recourse these nations have other than turning to international law. Even if its influence is weak or almost negligible in such wars, international law is the umbrella that should be sought, and efforts should be made to implement its provisions.
Strangely, some reminded us when the Israeli violations in Gaza escalated, and when the United States detained former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and even harking back to previous decades when the United States arrested Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in 1989 under the pretext of drug charges after invading Panama, and when it built detention camps in Guantanamo. In all these instances, the debate about the importance and effectiveness of international law was raised, highlighting its weakness.
However, I believe we should not burden these nations that resort to international law, nor international law itself, more than they can bear. The problem does not lie in international law itself, even if its application is often biased and selective, but the real crisis is with those who claim leadership while wielding guns. They are men who consider themselves rulers by their own authority, unfettered by any international rules or customs, protected by armies with military power many times greater than that of other nations, driven by advanced technologies that keep them distanced from everyone, shielded by rifles, weapons, and nuclear warheads.
In my view, this is far worse. I believe that international law, like domestic laws, ultimately relies on its application. The aim and expectation behind issuing laws are their implementation, not merely their existence. Can countries abandon their domestic laws because their application is flawed or problematic? Or can nations live without laws? Who would govern and regulate relationships among citizens in societies? Who guarantees justice in nations without laws? Thus, we must all ask ourselves, would a world without international law be better? I ponder this with you and leave the answer to you.
English 
العربية