By Udo Jude Ilo, CEO, The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL)
Across multiple conflicts, accountability has returned to the global agenda. Arrest warrants are issued, investigations are launched, and legal debates are intensifying. But beneath this renewed attention lies a more fundamental question: can international justice still be trusted to act consistently and for everyone The principle itself remains clear. War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression require accountability beyond borders. When national systems are unable or unwilling to act, international mechanisms are meant to step in. But systems are not judged by their principles. They are judged by how those principles are applied in practice.
International justice is not failing quietly. It is being tested in very visible and uneven ways.
A legitimacy problem, not a technical one
The central challenge facing international justice today is not the absence of legal frameworks. It is the erosion of trust in how those frameworks are used. In many parts of the world, particularly across the Global South, international justice is increasingly perceived as selective. It appears decisive in some situations and constrained in others. It moves with urgency when political interests align and slows down when they do not. This perception is shaped by both history and current realities. International legal systems were developed within a global order marked by inequality, and that legacy continues to influence how justice is delivered and experienced. At the same time, contemporary geopolitics reinforces these patterns through selective support, institutional paralysis, and pressure on international bodies.
The result is a system whose principles are widely accepted, but whose credibility is increasingly questioned. Credibility is not a secondary issue. It is the foundation of any functioning justice system.
Ukraine and the demonstration effect
Ukraine has become a defining example of what international justice can look like under the right conditions. Since the 2022 invasion, accountability efforts have been pursued with unusual speed and coordination. National courts, international institutions, and cross-border investigative mechanisms are working in parallel. Evidence is being documented in real time, and multiple legal pathways are advancing simultaneously.
This reflects political prioritization, institutional capacity, and sustained cooperation. It also demonstrates that the system can function effectively. It can move quickly, coordinate across jurisdictions, and adapt to evolving forms of evidence and conflict. At the same time, Ukraine exposes a deeper problem. The gap is not in capacity, but in consistency.
The risk of selective justice becoming the norm
If current patterns continue, international justice risks becoming fragmented in practice. A system may formally exist, but function differently depending on political context. In such a situation, accountability is shaped less by legal principle and more by strategic interests and alliances. The consequences are serious. Deterrence weakens when enforcement is inconsistent. Norms lose meaning when they are not applied equally. Impunity spreads when perpetrators believe accountability depends on political convenience. Ukraine demonstrates what is possible. The challenge is ensuring that this level of commitment is not limited to one conflict.
Beyond courts: what justice means in practice
There is also a second gap that needs attention. International justice has traditionally focused on courts, prosecutions, and legal outcomes. These are essential, but they do not capture the full experience of justice for those affected by conflict. For many people, justice is not defined by a courtroom. It is defined by whether they can rebuild their lives. It includes recovering land, resolving disputes, accessing reparations, restoring safety, and having their experiences acknowledged.
In many contexts, victims will never directly engage with international courts. Yet their need for justice remains immediate and practical. This is where a people-centered approach becomes critical. It focuses on resolving the problems people face in their daily lives and complements formal accountability mechanisms. Without this dimension, international justice risks remaining distant from the people it is meant to serve.
Restoring legitimacy: what needs to change
Rebuilding trust in international justice requires more than reaffirming existing principles. It requires consistent application, institutional cooperation, and a broader understanding of justice outcomes. First, legitimacy must be addressed directly. This includes acknowledging historical inequalities and confronting the perception of double standards. Second, cooperation must be strengthened across national systems, international institutions, and civil society. The level of coordination seen in Ukraine shows what is possible when these actors align. Third, justice processes must deliver outcomes that matter to affected communities. Accountability should not end with legal decisions but connect to tangible improvements in people’s lives.
A defining moment
International justice is under a huge strain.
Ukraine has shown that effective and coordinated accountability is achievable. The question is whether this approach can be applied consistently across different contexts. The future of international justice will not be determined by its legal frameworks alone. It will depend on whether people across different regions believe that the system applies to them equally. It will be judged by how well victims and survivors are able to pick up their lives. Legitimacy cannot be assumed. It has to be built through consistent action and attention to what justice means for people.
