Abstract

International law, often heralded as a mechanism for global justice, is paradoxically fraught with limitations that undermine its ability to resolve disputes effectively. Unlike domestic legal systems with centralized enforcement mechanisms, international law operates within a decentralized framework characterized by the diverse interests, power imbalances, and cultural heterogeneity of sovereign states. This fragmentation renders it a "weak law," lacking the coercive force and consistency of domestic legal systems. The proliferation of nation-states exacerbates these challenges, introducing moral and ethical dilemmas that hinder consensus on critical issues like conflict resolution. Cultural relativism, divergent interpretations of justice, and selective adherence to human rights principles further expose international law to manipulation and inconsistency. Scholars and theorists, particularly within disciplines like international relations, have critiqued these structural deficiencies. Realist perspectives, for instance, emphasize the anarchic international system, where states prioritize self-preservation and security, fostering a climate of mistrust and aggression. This systemic "self-help" paradigm often precludes the possibility of a cooperative, interconnected global order. Despite these challenges, foundational principles and doctrines of international law attempt to balance state sovereignty with obligations to the international community, albeit imperfectly. A critical and recurring tension exists between state sovereignty and human intervention, particularly in the context of protecting civilian populations in times of conflict. Historical instances such as the Kosovo War, Rwandan Genocide, and the Rohingya crisis illustrate these dilemmas. This paper delves into these complexities, with a specific focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. It examines how international law's inherent limitations and the aggressive tendencies of states contribute to persistent conflicts, arguing for pragmatic approaches to enhance civilian protection amidst the inevitability of war. This analysis highlights the urgent need for reform in international legal frameworks to address these glaring issues effectively.

Keywords