In the current global order, peace is no longer established through diplomacy—it is enforced through might. The principle that governs international relations today is simple: power legitimises itself. Military superiority, especially nuclear capability – now defines who rules, who is shielded, and who is silenced.
A glaring example is Palestine. Since October 2023, Gaza has endured one of the most devastating humanitarian catastrophes in modern times: at least 55,706 Palestinians killed and 130,101 wounded, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. By January 2024, UNICEF reported that 14,500 children had been killed, 17,000 orphaned or separated, and Gaza had the highest percentage of child amputees globally. These are not collateral damages – they are systematic violations of law and humanity.
The international legal framework meant to prevent such atrocities such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, Rome Statute of the ICC, Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been consistently ignored. Article 8 of the Rome Statute explicitly defines deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure as war crimes. Yet, violations by Israel are documented in the OHCHR’s 30 December 2024 press release which includes murder, torture, sexual violence, starvation as a weapon of war, indiscriminate attacks on civilian objects, forced displacement, and collective punishment. These are not allegations. They are evidence-backed determinations by UN-mandated experts.
And yet, the world remains largely silent. Why?
Because power protects itself. Nuclear powers whether economically robust or fragile wield an unspoken immunity. Even countries like Pakistan, despite deep economic instability, are seldom threatened directly due to their nuclear deterrence. Their military posture buys them geopolitical respect that their economy cannot.
One of the most guarded secrets in international politics is Israel’s nuclear policy. For decades, Israel has followed a strategy of deliberate ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons, instead stating: “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.” However, in November 2023, amid the intensifying war on Gaza, Israeli Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu publicly floated the idea of dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza, it was a chilling statement that many interpreted as a tacit admission of nuclear capability. While Prime Minister Netanyahu suspended the minister, the world had already taken note. Silence followed.
This silence also extends to Iran, a state with one of the world’s largest proven oil and gas reserves and control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 – 30% of global oil supply transits. Iran, often vocal on Palestine, has been strategically cautious. Its economic and geopolitical dependencies, especially in global energy trade and its own fragile economic ecosystem, have kept it from direct military involvement, despite the moral and ideological stakes.
Meanwhile, the world bears witness to selective intervention. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Lebanon have all suffered under Western or Israeli military aggression, often framed as anti-terrorism but ending in mass civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction of state institutions. The U.S. alone has used its UNSC veto power 42 times to shield Israel, while continuing to provide $3 billion annually in military aid.
This is not a religious war. It is a militarised geopolitical strategy aimed at maintaining global power hierarchies. It poses a question by the experts that law exists only for the weak. Sovereignty applies only until it offends the interests of the powerful. And accountability is demanded from the powerless, not those with nuclear warheads and strategic alliances.
It seems that the international system is thus not failing but it is functioning exactly as it was designed: As it was established to protect the dominant? What is urgently needed is a transformation of global governance mechanisms – the UN, the International Criminal Court, and international law must be empowered to act independently of hegemonic influence.
If the targeting of Palestine and the neutralisation of Iran’s potential role can continue unchecked, the precedent set is clear: peace is not a right, but a privilege of the powerful and the global community truly seeks a world free of nuclear weapons, disarmament must begin with the nine nuclear-armed states. If these powers retain their arsenals, calls for non-proliferation will remain hypocritical. This imbalance fosters power hegemony, where peace is dictated through threats, not diplomacy. Non-nuclear states are left vulnerable and forced to surrender or suffer devastating consequences, as seen in Gaza. Without equal commitment to disarmament, the world risks continuing cycles of coercion, conflict, and undeclared genocides against those who dare to resist dominant powers.
(The author is an assistant professor of law and a mediator based in Dubai. Her work focuses on international law, gender rights, and conflict resolution)