By Lawan Musa Danlami (Baba Lawan)
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s statement, “If we are defending International Law in Ukraine, we must defend International Law in Gaza,” has become one of the defining moral and political questions of contemporary international relations. His remarks go beyond the wars in Ukraine and Gaza; they challenge the international community to examine whether the principles of international law are genuinely universal or merely instruments selectively applied according to geopolitical interests.
Since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945, international law has been regarded as the foundation of the modern international order. The Charter, alongside the Geneva Conventions of 1949, established principles designed to protect state sovereignty, prohibit aggression, safeguard civilians during armed conflicts, and hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable. These legal norms were intended to apply equally to all states regardless of their political, economic, or military influence.
However, the reality of international politics has increasingly raised doubts about whether these principles are enforced consistently.
The international response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated an unprecedented level of unity among many Western governments. Russia faced sweeping economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, military assistance was extended to Ukraine, and international legal institutions quickly initiated investigations into alleged war crimes. These actions reflected a firm commitment to defending the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity established under international law.
In contrast, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has generated a markedly different global response. Although numerous governments have expressed concern over civilian casualties, humanitarian blockades, and destruction of infrastructure, critics argue that comparable political, economic, and diplomatic measures have not been consistently applied. This divergence has led many observers to question whether international law is administered according to legal principles or strategic alliances.
It is this perceived inconsistency that Pedro Sánchez sought to highlight. If attacks on civilians violate international law in one conflict, then those same legal principles should apply wherever civilians are affected. International humanitarian law does not distinguish between victims based on nationality, religion, ethnicity, or political alliances.
This debate has occupied some of the world’s leading scholars for decades.
The late Kenyan political scientist Ali A. Mazrui argued that global politics often operates according to what he described as “the unequal morality of world politics.” According to Mazrui, powerful nations frequently present themselves as defenders of democracy, human rights, and international law while applying these principles selectively whenever their geopolitical interests are involved. He maintained that international law derives its legitimacy not from military power but from impartial enforcement. Once justice becomes selective, international institutions begin to lose their moral credibility.
Similarly, the renowned African historian Walter Rodney, in his classic work How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, argued that international institutions have historically reflected unequal global power relations. Although Rodney’s primary concern was colonialism and economic exploitation, his broader analysis remains relevant today. He demonstrated that global legal and political institutions have often served the interests of dominant powers rather than universal justice.
Nigerian political economist Claude Ake reached similar conclusions. He observed that international politics is rarely governed solely by legal or moral principles. Instead, he argued that power frequently determines which legal norms are enforced and against whom. According to Ake, justice in the international system often becomes subordinate to geopolitical calculations, explaining why comparable conflicts sometimes receive dramatically different international responses.
The American linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky has also consistently criticized what he considers the selective application of international law. Chomsky argues that major powers frequently condemn violations committed by their adversaries while remaining considerably less critical when similar actions involve strategic allies. Whether one agrees entirely with his conclusions or not, his observations have significantly influenced contemporary debates on international justice.
From the perspective of international relations theory, John J. Mearsheimer, one of the foremost proponents of Offensive Realism, argues that states primarily pursue survival and national interest rather than legal or moral obligations. According to Mearsheimer, international law is often respected when it aligns with strategic interests but ignored whenever it conflicts with national security objectives. His theory helps explain why governments may react differently to similar conflicts occurring in different geopolitical environments.
International legal scholar Antonio Cassese, regarded as one of the architects of modern international criminal law, warned that the effectiveness of international law depends upon its impartial application. He argued that institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) can only maintain legitimacy if accountability is applied equally to all parties, irrespective of political influence.
Likewise, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and former United Nations Special Rapporteur, has argued that selective enforcement of international humanitarian law weakens the credibility of the so-called rules-based international order. According to Falk, legal consistency—not political convenience—is the true foundation of global justice.
These scholarly observations are increasingly echoed by political leaders across the Global South. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has repeatedly called for the equal application of international humanitarian law without double standards. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has similarly questioned why violations in Ukraine receive swift international condemnation while comparable humanitarian concerns in Gaza often produce more restrained political responses. Their arguments reflect growing concerns among developing nations that unequal enforcement undermines confidence in the international legal system.
The humanitarian consequences of selective justice are profound. Civilians become the greatest victims whenever legal protections are subordinated to geopolitical interests. Whether the victims are Ukrainians, Palestinians, Sudanese, or people affected by conflicts elsewhere, the Geneva Conventions recognize no hierarchy of human life. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and protection of non-combatants are universal obligations.
Critics of Sánchez’s position argue that every conflict possesses unique historical, political, and security dimensions that make direct comparisons difficult. They contend that legal analysis should consider the specific facts surrounding each conflict rather than assuming identical diplomatic responses. Nevertheless, even these critics generally accept that international humanitarian law itself should apply equally to all parties engaged in armed conflict.
Ultimately, Pedro Sánchez’s statement is less about comparing Ukraine and Gaza than about defending the integrity of international law itself. If the international community genuinely believes in a rules-based global order, those rules cannot depend upon geography, political alliances, or strategic convenience. Justice that is selective ceases to be justice and instead becomes an instrument of power.
As Ali Mazrui warned, the moral authority of international institutions depends upon their impartiality rather than their political influence.
Likewise, Claude Ake reminded us that justice cannot flourish where power consistently overrides principle, while Walter Rodney demonstrated that unequal global structures inevitably produce unequal outcomes. Their collective insights remain remarkably relevant in today’s international environment.
The future credibility of the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the broader international legal order will depend not on the eloquence of their charters but on the consistency of their actions. International law must either protect all civilians equally or risk losing the universal legitimacy upon which it was founded. In an increasingly polarized world, the greatest challenge is not writing new laws but ensuring that existing laws apply equally to both the powerful and the powerless.