The biggest challenge for international law in 2025, and for many years to come, is that of credibility. The events of and after 7 October, 2023, in Palestine may have posed the greatest challenge to the credibility of the international legal order since World War II. While it is difficult to argue against the prevailing pessimism, the resilience of international law has been tested many times before, particularly by the events in Rwanda and Srebrenica. International law has continuously evolved and emerged stronger, but not without the support of the international community.

This time, too, the international community has no choice but to rethink international law and reconstruct more resilient, robust, and fair legal norms that provide equal opportunities for all states and protection for all citizens, regardless of the “color of their skin and eyes”. After all, the only thing worse than weak international law is a world without one. At its worst, international law sets standards against which the world judges the arbitrary actions of states and non-state actors. At its best, it holds perpetrators accountable for heinous crimes.

In 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is seized of the contentious case between South Africa and Israel related to the commission of genocide in Gaza. In this case, Palestine and Nicaragua have requested to intervene as parties under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, and 12 other states have sought to intervene under Article 63 of the Statute. While it is unlikely that the ICJ will deliver its judgment in 2025, there may still be progress. The ICJ is also likely to deliberate on the latest advisory opinion sought by the UNGA on December 24, 2024, regarding the obligations of Israel concerning the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. These proceedings could help the international community provide aid to Palestinians, protecting them from starvation, disease, and shortages of medicine and essential supplies.

Although there is little hope for progress from the International Criminal Court (ICC) after the issuance of warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, two other significant events related to Palestine are noteworthy. First, the UNGA resolution (co-sponsored by Pakistan) gave Israel a 12- month deadline to end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and comply with its legal obligations under international law, as stipulated in the ICJ’s advisory opinion (A/RES/ES-10/24). While the chances of Israel fulfilling these obligations remain slim, it would be interesting to see the necessary actions the UNGA might take in response to Israel’s failure. Second, the “High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution”, scheduled for June 2025, offers a potential pathway for lasting peace in the region and recognition of Palestinian statehood. Pakistan, along with Algeria, can play a crucial role, particularly as it began its two-year term as a non- permanent member of the UNSC on 1^st January.

The ICJ is also set to deliver its non-binding yet highly revered advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change. Public hearings have concluded, with 96 states, including Pakistan, and 11 international organizations presenting oral statements. Developing countries, deeply disappointed by COP 29 in Baku, now pin their hopes on the Court’s advisory opinion, which will clarify state obligations under international law to protect the climate system and the legal consequences for states’ actions or omissions, particularly regarding climate-vulnerable small island developing states and future generations. For Pakistan, one of the most climate- vulnerable countries, this opinion is vital, not only for its environmental future but also for its potential impact on future climate negotiations with India.

Renegotiating or modifying the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) with India will be one of Pakistan’s key international challenges in 2025 and beyond. After receiving multiple notices since January 2023, the latest linking climate change and terrorism with the IWT, Pakistan’s stance on the issue remains unclear. Another challenge lies in Pakistan’s sharp shift in its stance on military actions against transboundary terrorist groups in neighboring states. Maintaining consistent legal positions for its eastern and western borders while complying with Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defense) will be challenging. The repatriation of Afghan refugees in accordance with customary international law presents another challenge, requiring Pakistan to balance its national security needs with international obligations, especially the principle of non-refoulement. Finally, Pakistan must seriously recalibrate its compliance mechanism with international human rights commitments. Human rights obligations are not mere tools of political narrative; they have significant political, economic, and reputational consequences. Adherence to these obligations has been a cornerstone of Pakistan’s stance on important issues, including Kashmir. Weakening compliance will affect many of Pakistan’s principled positions.

These challenges come alongside ongoing issues in commercial and investment-related treaty negotiations and disputes, such as the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. Pakistan must adopt a proactive approach and safeguard its national interests by carefully and transparently negotiating treaties and agreements, and contributing to international law-related norm-making by actively participating in multilateral treaty mechanisms and international law-related reform working groups. Pakistan must also rethink its international law obligations, positions, and priorities, treating them as critical components of both its domestic and international policies and integrating them into policy planning and decision-making, rather than merely as tools for strategic communication, narrative building, or crisis management. Concrete policies and strategies require more than ad hoc mechanisms and reliance on foreign legal experts. After all, Pakistan’s policymakers, obsessed with “lawfare”, should also acknowledge that no country has ever won a war by relying solely on mercenaries.