Diplomacy is dead, and we have killed it. This idea was recently alluded to by Nabeel A. Khoury from the Arab Center in Washington, DC. Though many of the international events of 2024 appear to be signaling toward a global shift away from the adherence and enforcement of international law, no event has captivated this sentiment as well as Israel’s strike on Doha and the subsequent lack of accountability that followed.
Operations of International Law
International law functions only when states grant it the power to do so. Similar to a confederal model of governments, sovereign states grant international bodies, notably the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the authority to draft and enforce the principles of international law.
Longstanding criticism of international law stems from the premise that for states to be held accountable for their actions, they must both sign and ratify treaties and conventions, meaning that non-signatories have a greater probability of evading consequences for their violations. States that have signed onto conventions may withdraw at any moment to evade compliance and oversight (as was the case with the Philippines and Burundi). The most heavily contested aspect of international law rests in its method of enforcement. The responsibility of enforcing international laws lies among its member states, who are tasked with implementing accountability measures according to the mechanisms set up by the ruling body.
Global Precedents: International Law in Wartime and Qatar
In light of contemporary global developments, which risk the very integrity of diplomacy and undermine the entire legal system itself, the need for compliance with international law cannot be stressed enough. One diplomat even went as far as saying that “there is no diplomacy” following Israel’s recent strike on Doha, Qatar.
Before analyzing the event itself, it is important to understand the current precedent on international law in wartime and Qatar’s role as a mediator.
Even wars have rules. The Hague Conventions protect neutral states from attack, especially when acting as mediators, and the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization.
Coined as the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” Qatar began gaining prominence for its exportation of diplomacy and status as a neutral party around two decades ago. Qatar’s adherence to the soft power model has allowed it to build positive diplomatic relations with Western, Arab, African, and Asian nations. These relations granted Qatar the level of legitimacy necessary to be entrusted as a mediator for high-stakes conflicts, including but not limited to those between Afghanistan’s Taliban and the United States (2021), the United States and Iran (2023), and Ukraine and Russia (2025). In a time when global mediators are in increasing demand and limited supply, it is vital to ensure that conditions fostering parties’ willingness to be mediators and neutral parties are met. Increased risks to third parties will resultantly decrease parties’ willingness to mediate, given the associated risks. The future of settlement through peaceful resolution may be at risk, signaling a grim future for diplomacy.
Israel’s Strike on Qatar
On Sept. 9, 2024 Israel struck Doha, stating that the attack targeted “terrorist masterminds,” in reference to the Hamas officials who were in Qatar to negotiate a path toward peace for the War in the Gaza Strip. Leading up to the strike, Hamas officials were assessing the United States’ proposed ceasefire deal, which would have negotiated a hostage release and an end to the fighting, which have resulted in grotesque conditions for civilians in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 2023. Several Hamas members and a Qatari security official were killed in what Qatar’s prime minister has now called “an act of state terror.”
I need not elaborate on how attacking a neutral state mediating peace talks is a clear violation of international law and threatens the very future of diplomacy.
Accountability’s Role in International Law
It is vital to dissect the conditions that allowed a state to believe its outward violations of international law would be permissible. It would only be logical to assume that the answer lies in Israel not being a signatory to the ICC, the law on neutrality, and other international treaties, which would not constrain the party to abide by certain international laws. However, this view is shortsighted. The ICC may still bring forward cases against non-member states that violate international law, and customary law — which includes the neutrality in wartime — applies to all states.
So, it is evident that Israel’s defiance of international law was not out of a belief that it was not bound by these principles. Perhaps a more viable conclusion lies in the international community’s precedent to deny accountability for states that commit grievances. This is not to say that the international community condoned Israel’s action, but rather, through its history of failing to deliver consequences when states violated international law, Israel felt comfortable in its action. This is not to say that international actors have not outwardly opposed the actions of Israel or other aggressor states; of course, there have been statements of condemnation, but at the end of the day, trade agreements remain in place, economic aid continues flowing, and military contracts are still signed. A state’s actions will always be more important than its claims, and the actions of the international community signal that they are not at liberty to act in a manner that ensures accountability for states that violate international law.
States are not incentivized to abide by international law without the accountability set by their peers. Countries should bear the weight and discomfort of not being signatories to human rights treaties, and they should especially face repercussions for violations of international law. Thus, the international community must do a better job implementing targeted and effective consequences for all states found guilty of committing grievances on a global scale; otherwise, international law will be rendered obsolete.
So, is Diplomacy Dead?
Despite pessimistic sentiments among analysts, whether diplomacy truly begins to wane and die is entirely within the jurisdiction of our nations. Peace is not a matter of chance; it is carefully calculated and delegated. States ought to fulfill their responsibilities to enforce consequences on those who choose aggression over peace, not only through politically correct, prestigious speeches at the United Nations, but also through tangible actions that hold weight, ensuring that accountability will be delivered when peers violate international agreements. For the proliferation of diplomacy, our leaders must foster an environment of peace promotion by states. These conditions are not obtained through violations of international law, which target neutral actors. We must hold our leaders to account. We must not let diplomacy die.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
