Copyright © 2026

prepared by the Inclusive Society Institute

PO Box 12609

Mill Street

Cape Town, 8010

South Africa

235-515 NPO

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission in

writing from the Global South Perspectives Network

DISCLAIMER

Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of

The coordinating entities or any of their office bearers

Original transcripts of the presentations made during a meeting held on 13 April 2026 have been summarised with the use of the AI tool and then edited and amended where necessary by the rapporteur for correctness and context.

APRIL 2026

Rapporteur: Klaus Kotzé

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction: A slippery slope from rules to exceptions

2 Legitimacy trumps legality: The new fault line

3 The enforcement dilemma

4 The fragmentation of order and multilateralism as selective

5 The role of actors beyond the state

6 Continuity and change

7 Reflection

Cover photo: Image generated using OpenAI’s DALL·E image generation model (2026). Concept developed for the Inclusive Society Institute / Global South Perspectives Network publication.

1 INTRODUCTION: A SLIPPERY SLOPE

FROM RULES TO EXCEPTIONS

The discussion on 13 April 2026 was held at a time when international events require particularly clear context. The speaker, Mona Ali Khalil, a recognized public international lawyer with 30 years’ experience in the UN system, offered the discussion context and insight into what is a confounding global situation; a war that has taken on global effects after Israel and America’s attack on Iran. Not only is what is happening another flashpoint, it signifies a gradual shift in the way that rules are interpreted. Or as the session discussed, set aside.

Ms Khalil’s presentation was particularly illustrative. She did not focus narrowly on legality, but also drew attention to the broader patterns in global developments. She spoke about the normalisation of exceptions. Current developments indicate that the constraint that the post-war international system once offered is fraying. Increasingly there is a willingness, particularly from superpowers or regional powers, to reinterpret constraints for the sake of political expediency.

Ms Khalil’s message was not one of alarm. It was rather measured and diagnostic. The concern was less that international law was disappearing. Instead, that its centre of gravity is moving. While rules may continue to remain in place, it is their application that appears increasingly contingent.

Throughout the discussion there was recognition that this shift is not entirely new. Iraq, Libya and other situations were suggested as examples where legal justifications and political motivations sat uneasily alongside one another. It was the cumulative effect that presented a problem. Together, all the instances create a divergence in practice and relationship to law.

A subtle result emerges: a shift in the baseline as to how states’ behaviour is judged. This shift is internalised over time. When exceptions accumulate, expectations follow. Where actions once triggered widespread responses from legal, political and other origins, these are now met with muted and fragmented responses. This is dangerous not only for any single breach, but for the culture that recalibrates the perceived normal.

The intransigence of the US and Israel in its actions against Iran, and Iran’s belligerence against regional states have significantly contributed to the erosion of global principles. This will have a lasting impact on the future of international law. It was agreed all round that the shifting baseline should be addressed; global leadership was sorely needed.

2 LEGITIMACY TRUMPS LEGALITY: THE

NEW FAULT LINE 

Throughout the conversation, the speaker and discussants returned to the distinction between legality and legitimacy.

Though legal arguments continue to be advanced, these are not sufficient to establish a broad acceptance. Recently it has been legitimacy that is doing the heavier work. This means, in practice, that similar actions may be judged very differently depending on the conditions and the agent undertaking the actions.

Many discussants noted that double standards have become visible and normalised. Not simply are rules being applied unevenly; they are also unevenly applied. This feeds a sense of disillusionment. Global South actors and other states who have long been subject to the discipline of international norms without always experiencing their consistent protection are directly affected.

The speaker suggested that this is not simply a matter of hypocrisy. It also signifies the erosion of a shared reference point. Participants agreed this to be a dangerous precedent. That when legitimacy becomes fragmented, the system no longer operates as a common framework for all parties. It instead becomes a series of overlapping, and sometimes competing, interpretations.

There are serious practical consequences for these changes. States may continue to invoke international law, not as a constraint, but as justification. Though formal structures may remain, this will, over time, lead to the increasing hollowing out of what has been the normative system in place since the end of the World Wars.

3 THE ENFORCEMENT DILEMMA

The discussion maintained that international institutions must continue to play an important and central role. Where wars of aggression take place, institutions that do not take up their rightful space are threatened with irrelevance. Discussants agreed that bodies such as the United Nations, and its associated legal mechanisms, will always be important in the articulation of norms and clarifying legal positions.

Nevertheless, recent international events, particularly the one under discussion, pointed to a gap between articulation and the enforcement of principles. Whereas courts can issue rulings and commissions  can produce findings and resolutions, there is a severe limitation as to where these intersect with powerful states and their interests. The capacity and the craft of compelling compliance is often limited. 

Whereas this is not a new observation, it does appear to become more common and is gaining increasing attention. The International Court of Justice and other such institutions are increasing becoming visible places. Expectation for enforcement is increasing sought, which then drives the politicisation of these places which in essence should be neutral. This adds to the existing structural limitations that have become more apparent. Participants agreed that whereas institutions play a central role, a tension remains. On the one hand, the continued functioning of these institutions provides a degree of continuity. On the other, their inability to ensure consistent enforcement raises questions about their longer-term authority.

An institutional paradox emerges. On the one hand, the system remains necessary, but on the other, it appears increasingly insufficient. Some participants suggested a more structural dilemma has formed and is threatening consensus-seeking institutions. When consensus frays, the limits of these designs appear more clearly. It is not simply that institutions fail their mandates. It is the conditions they are operating in that are changing. They are not sufficiently set up to adapt to these situations.

4 THE FRAGMENTATION OF ORDER AND

MULTILATERALISM AS SELECTIVE

Selective multilateralism was raised as a theme in the discussion. Recent wars and global disturbances, primarily Russia’s war on Ukraine and the pursuit of American primacy, have signalled that engagement between states do not continue to operate within multilateral frameworks. Instead, their engagement has become more strategic and conditional than before. Support for institutions is purported as conditional. Support is offered when national interests are furthered and bypassed when they do not. This suggests a more instrumental approach and not simply a rejection of multilateralism.

Participants noted this to be a widespread change in the approach upon which the world has rested upon. A more uneven landscape of overlapping partnerships, agreements and shifting coalitions are taking shape. The varying compliance to common rules threatens the sustainability of world order.

This is creating a particularly tenuous situation for the Global South. Its actors do not possess the power nor the influence to shape a fluid and complex environment. Whereas fragmentation opens space for greater Global South participation and influence, at the same time it diminishes trust and predictability between nations.

This fragmentation, suggested Ms Khalil, should not be understood purely in negative terms. It reflects real changes in the distribution of power. Whether new forms of coherence can emerge within this more pluralistic setting is the real question.

5 THE ROLE OF ACTORS BEYOND THE

STATE

A tentative yet significant part of the discussion was about actors outside of the state. Both Ms Khalil and other speakers suggested that civil society, transnational networks and public opinion occupy important roles in shaping the direction of international norms and action. While these actors may lack formal authority; they nevertheless influence the environment within which states operate. This is particularly the case when it regards the by shaping of legitimate narratives.

Participants reflected on historical precedents where sustained advocacy had contributed to shifts in international practice. Direct parallels were not drawn, but rather as indications that the system is not entirely closed.

It was also often suggested that such forms of influence produce are uneven and often fragile. Civil society pressure, while it may be effective in some contexts, can be largely irrelevant in others. Instead, its impact depends heavily on political openness, media environments, and the willingness of states to respond.

As such, a more layered understanding of accountability was introduced. It does not reside solely in formal institutions, but is distributed across multiple sites, such as legal, political and societal domains. All these domains are impacted by each other and have their own clear limitations.

Non-state actors were suggested not only to be reactive. They are often anticipatory. By shaping public discourse and signalling emerging norms, civil society and transnational networks can, in certain contexts, alter the incentives facing decision-makers before formal processes are engaged. Institutional accountability is not simply replaced. It can be complementary, particularly in areas where formal mechanisms are slow or constrained. The interaction between these different layers of influence remains uneven, but increasingly relevant.

6 CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

The discussion often turned to reflecting on what the tensions under discussion meant for the present and future of the international systems. With the focus on the war in the middle east serving not only as the focal point of the discussion. It also provided a lens through which the broader questions about global conflict and change could be interpreted.

Ms Khallil’s suggested a more restrained approach. The current order has taken significant damage. But it was not simply collapsing. She suggested a more ambiguous reality. A situation where the existing frameworks continue to operate. This is taking place under conditions that are increasingly contested. While many people still spoke in the familiar legal language, and institutional processes, and diplomatic engagement continued as before, yet the functioning of the system suggests a gradual shift. This is seen in the manner in the political considerations are made.

The ongoing tension in the spiralling war makes this clear. Legal justifications continue to be advanced, and references to established norms remain central to how actions are framed. This is happening at the same time that the world is witnessing a clear divergence in the manner that norms are applied and interpreted. Both the old and the new coexist in an uneven and unsteady way. Increasingly a more uneven landscape is emerging. One where an uneasy continuity and change coexist.

All of this suggests that going forward the challenge will be an international situation not of replacement, but of adaptation. Sovereignty, restraint in the use of force, and multilateral cooperation, the core principles in the hitherto system will remain significant and relevant. However, what really matters will increasing be how they are practically applied. Power will become more diffuse and alignments less stable. Altogether consensus will be more difficult to sustain. Interpretation will in effect become more important than whether principles endure.

Participants roundly agreed that periods such as this tend to be understood more clearly in retrospect than in the moment itself. The reconfiguration takes time and what may currently appear as inconsistency or drift could be established in time. This is not to say that discussants’ concerns should be diminished, rather it introduces a degree of caution in how the present moment is assessed. The language of crisis, while understandable, may obscure the more gradual and complex nature of the changes underway.

Nonetheless, it is important to consider the human consequences and the immediacy of the conflict. It should not be purely abstracted in interpretation. The war in the Middle East brings into sharp focus the lived realities that accompany these broader shifts. People are directly being affected. This is not theoretical, but is experienced in terms of security, displacement and the erosion of everyday stability. These tangible realities anchored the discussion throughout, with speakers roundly condemning the situation and advancing a peaceful outcome.

The discussion closed off with participants resisting the temptation to offer simple prescriptions or definitive conclusions. Instead, the speaker and discussants contributed to a more grounded appreciation of the complexity of the moment. They agreed that the global system is and will remain under strain. It was still operative, but that the norms were increasingly under pressure. It was not clear whether this represented a transitional phase or a more enduring transformation. Instead, what is evident is that the interplay between continuity and change will continue to share both the trajectory of the current crisis and the future character of the international order itself.

7 REFLECTION

The unifying thread in the April edition of the Monday Consultations was the sense that international law is undergoing a stress test. Less through outright rejection than through gradual reinterpretation.

Ms Khalil’s valuable interventions captured this most clearly. Her concern was not that rules no longer exist, but rather that the meaning and need for implementing rules have become questioned and contingent. Power defined by politics, not norms. This is a clear risk over time. Affecting not only how the system functions, but how it is perceived.

Uncertainty remains. It is still unclear whether this represents a period of transition or a more enduring shift. It did appear from the discussion that the maintenance of global principles will depend not only on formal commitments. Instead, it will largely depend on states and non-state actors and the willingness they have to treat these as more than instruments of convenience.

The effect on ordinary people is more than a theoretical consideration. The developments in the Middle East suggest an increased impact on the lives of citizens in the region and around the world. It serves as a reminder that the erosion of global principles effect people in varying ways. Beyond the language of legality and strategy, it is civilians who bear the immediate burden. This happens through economic disruption, displacement and the unravelling of social and political stability. The effects of war, while decided upon strategic, tactical or doctrinal bases, are experienced on the ground as insecurity, loss and uncertainty about the future. It is the role of governments and citizens around the world to raise and sustain this concern, particularly now.

Furthermore, the reverberations and effects of this conflict will continue to be felt globally. Rising geopolitical tensions contribute to economic volatility for people across the world. The shifts in energy and food prices place additional pressures on already fragile systems that are still in recovery from previous shocks. The world is deeply interconnected. Contemporary wars are felt globally. Wars of aggression and external shocks have significant implications and compounding effects on the Global South, where resilience is often stretched. Weakened international norms filters through into the everyday realities of households and communities, shaping livelihoods in ways that profound. It is imperative for leaders and institutions to consider these realities when they develop their plans. The world community must now, more than ever, unite in a message of resistance against wars of aggression. It must advance the utility and importance of institutions and the norms that bind them.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute on behalf of the Global South Perspectives Network

Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN) is an international coalition founded in 2022 by HumanizaCom, the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability (FOGGS), and the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI). It brings together think tanks and experts from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East to amplify Global South voices in global governance debates.

GSPN works to strengthen Southern representation in decision-making, focusing on United Nations reform and multilateralism. Through research, dialogue, and advocacy, it promotes equitable partnerships between the Global South and North.

Key initiatives include the 2023 report Global South Perspectives on Global Governance Reform, presented at a UN workshop in New York, and events such as the 2024 UN Civil Society workshop in Nairobi.

GSPN’s mission is to ensure Global South nations are equal partners in shaping global policy, fostering a fair, inclusive, and sustainable international order.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za