In the news: Why international law still matters, even when it's broken

Does international law still guide action when it is repeatedly violated? Professor Michael Riegner  takes up this question in a recent interview with Web.de. He argues that it is not the law itself that is obsolete. Rather, consistent compliance and enforcement must be placed at the center of the debate. 

Riegner emphasizes that violations of the law do not devalue international law—even in the international context, it continues to form the basis for peaceful relations between states. Many norms of international law operate “in the background” and enable everyday international cooperation, for example in communication, trade, or diplomacy.

At the same time, he underscores the importance of clearly identifying and criticizing violations. Public attention and legal classification increase the political costs of rule violations, thereby strengthening the normative force of the law.

It is also crucial not to misunderstand international law as merely an instrument of direct enforcement. Rather, it is a normative framework that structures state behavior, stabilizes expectations, and has a long-term impact. This perspective is particularly relevant in the context of current international conflicts.

Those who rush to declare international law a failure weaken precisely those rules that are intended to limit power, contain conflicts, and offer protection. Research and scientific analysis, as evident in the interview, therefore make an important contribution to public debate: they create differentiation, counter simplistic narratives, and promote understanding of legal contexts in a complex world.

Objective legal standards are essential, especially in times of multiple global challenges. They not only serve as moral guidance, but also form a legally binding basis for international action.

The full interview is available online: „Ist das Völkerrecht nichts mehr wert? Ein Jura‑Professor widerspricht"