Annisa Essack | kzn@radioislam.org.za
28 April 2026  | 2-minute read

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE

At a time when the world feels increasingly combustible, questions about the strength and relevance of international law are no longer confined to lecture halls or diplomatic corridors. They are playing out in real time, in Gaza, Iran, Sudan, and beyond.

In a wide-ranging interview with Radio Islam International, Kenneth Roth, one of the world’s most prominent human rights advocates and former head of Human Rights Watch, painted a sobering picture of a global system under strain, but not yet broken.

A Tale of Two Legal Frameworks

Roth draws a crucial distinction often lost in public debate: international law is not a single monolith. It operates on two key fronts.

First, there is the prohibition on aggression, enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Here, Roth is blunt. Recent actions by powerful states, particularly the United States and Israel, represent clear violations.

Preventive war, he argues, remains illegal under international law. Allowing countries to strike based on perceived future threats would open the floodgates to endless conflict. “You’d have a million wars,” he warns, underscoring how fragile global stability becomes when powerful actors rewrite the rules.

The second framework governs how wars are fought, known as international humanitarian law. And here, Roth offers a more nuanced view.

Despite what he describes as grave violations, particularly in Gaza, he points to a surprisingly robust international response. Bodies such as the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council have issued strong condemnations. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court has filed charges against the Israeli leadership, and the International Court of Justice is hearing South Africa’s genocide case.

For Roth, this matters. A violation of the law does not automatically signal its collapse. What matters is how the world responds.

“Toothless” or Tested?

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently described the United Nations as “toothless.” Roth disagrees.

While acknowledging the paralysis of the UN Security Council due to veto politics, he argues that other international mechanisms are very much alive. Investigations, indictments, and diplomatic pressure are still shaping behaviour, even if imperfectly.

It is not a cinematic version of justice with handcuffs and courtrooms on demand. It is slower, messier, and deeply dependent on political will. But it exists.

And sometimes, it bites.

Roth points to how leaders like Vladimir Putin have altered travel plans to avoid arrest under ICC warrants. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces restricted movement, carefully navigating air routes to avoid jurisdictions where he could be detained.

Justice, in this system, may be delayed. But it is not always denied.

The Rise of “Predatory Leadership”

The term “predatory leadership” has entered the global conversation, and Roth does not shy away from it.

He describes a world where certain leaders are testing the limits, pushing beyond established norms, and betting on impunity. Yet he cautions against assuming this represents a universal shift.

“This is Trump’s vision of the world,” Roth notes, referring to former US President Donald Trump. A world divided into spheres of influence, where might dictates right.

But that vision, he insists, is not widely shared.

Most nations, and most people, still reject the idea that borders can be redrawn by force or that civilians can be treated as expendable. The danger lies not in universal collapse, but in selective erosion.

The Cost of Selective Justice

Perhaps the most striking part of the conversation comes when Roth addresses the consequences of inconsistency.

If international law is applied selectively, it begins to lose its moral authority. And when that happens, the message to perpetrators is simple: if you are powerful enough, you can get away with it.

He cites the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region, where the Rapid Support Forces have been accused of genocide, allegedly with backing from the United Arab Emirates. The muted global response, he suggests, reflects how wealth and influence can shield actors from accountability.

It is here that Roth places a particular responsibility on countries like South Africa.

With its historical legacy and moral standing, he argues, South Africa should not only speak out on Gaza but also on conflicts involving Rwanda in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia in Ukraine, and others. Consistency is the currency of credibility.

A System Worth Defending

For ordinary civilians caught in conflict zones, the stakes could not be higher.

A weakened accountability system does not just mean legal ambiguity. It means more deaths, more displacement, and more unchecked violence. “You’re more likely to be slaughtered,” Roth says plainly.

And yet, despite the bleakness, he resists the narrative of total collapse.

International law, he argues, is still a work in progress. It reflects a global consensus that, while imperfect, continues to hold significant weight. The challenge is not to abandon it, but to defend it more consistently and more courageously.

Because if the rules fall away entirely, what replaces them is not order. It is something far more volatile.

A world where power speaks first, and principles are left scrambling to be heard.