Universal Application of International Law: Reflections from the UN Security Council Arria-Formula Meeting

By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai*

The Arria-Formula meeting of the United Nations Security Council on “Upholding International Law in Situations of Armed Conflict,” held on September 16, 2026, highlighted a principle that few would dispute: international law must be applied universally, consistently, and without selectivity.

Hosted by Pakistan, an elected member of the Security Council, the meeting brought together representatives of numerous Member States, humanitarian organizations, and civil society experts. I was honored to participate as one of the four invited briefers, alongside representatives of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the International Peace Institute (IPI).

The discussion was timely. Armed conflicts in different regions continue to inflict immense suffering upon civilian populations. Death, displacement, destruction of homes and livelihoods, restrictions on humanitarian access, and widespread violations of human dignity remain recurring features of contemporary conflicts. In such circumstances, international humanitarian law and applicable international human rights law are not abstract principles; they are safeguards intended to protect human life.

A central theme emerged throughout the meeting: the challenge facing the international community is often not the absence of law, but the failure to implement it consistently.

Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, captured this point succinctly when he stated:

“International law is not an abstract commitment. In situations of armed conflict, respect for international law can mean the difference between protection and peril, between humanitarian access and deprivation, and between life and death.”

He further observed that:

“The problem is not an absence of law; it is the absence of compliance.”

This distinction is important. Over decades, the international community has developed an extensive body of legal norms, Security Council resolutions, humanitarian conventions, and human rights instruments. Yet the credibility of these norms depends not only upon their existence, but upon their consistent implementation.

Representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council, despite differing national perspectives, repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting civilians, implementing international humanitarian law, respecting Security Council resolutions, and avoiding selective application of legal principles. Their interventions reflected a broad recognition that double standards weaken confidence in international institutions and diminish the effectiveness of legal protections.

The humanitarian dimensions of the discussion were particularly compelling.

Mr. Aurélien Buffler of OCHA emphasized that international humanitarian law remains indispensable for the protection of civilians and for ensuring humanitarian access during armed conflict. He warned that parties to conflicts sometimes reinterpret, circumvent, or disregard rules designed to protect vulnerable populations.

Ms. Elyse Mosquini of the International Committee of the Red Cross described the devastating human consequences of contemporary conflicts: loss of civilian life, injuries to children, displacement of millions, destruction of homes and livelihoods, and damage to cultural and environmental heritage.

Dr. Jenna Russo of the International Peace Institute stressed the importance of accountability and meaningful consequences for violations of international law. She noted that political considerations often affect international responses and that impartial application of legal principles remains a continuing challenge.

These interventions reinforced a simple but powerful truth: international law matters most when it protects people in practice.

In my own remarks, I referred to the question of Jammu and Kashmir as an example of the broader challenge discussed during the meeting: how to ensure that international principles are implemented consistently and credibly.

I recalled that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in its 2018 and 2019 reports, documented allegations concerning arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, excessive use of force, torture, enforced disappearances, and other human rights concerns in Kashmir. The reports also noted limitations on access and observed that independent verification on the ground remained difficult.

It is important to state clearly that recognizing these limitations does not diminish the value of the work already undertaken by OHCHR. On the contrary, the reports represent important efforts to document concerns under difficult circumstances.

At the same time, the seriousness of the allegations and the continuing restrictions on independent access suggest that further impartial examination could be valuable. The 2018 OHCHR report itself recommended consideration of an independent international investigation into allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir.

For this reason, I suggested that the United Nations consider an impartial and credible mechanism capable of conducting direct, on-the-ground verification, hearing from victims and witnesses, examining available evidence, and assessing competing claims objectively.

The principle involved extends beyond any one conflict or region. Serious allegations require serious investigation, and credible investigation requires access to evidence.

The issue is not to replace existing documentation, but to strengthen it. Independent verification, where possible, can help establish facts, reduce competing narratives, and contribute to accountability and peaceful resolution.

The discussion at the Arria-Formula meeting also demonstrated the continuing value of dialogue. The participation of Member States, humanitarian organizations, experts, and civil society representatives reflected a shared understanding that effective protection of civilians requires cooperation and sustained engagement.

International law derives its strength not only from treaties and resolutions, but from the willingness of states and institutions to apply legal principles equally and consistently. Selective implementation weakens confidence in the international system and undermines the universality upon which international law depends.

The challenge before the international community is therefore clear: how can principles repeatedly affirmed in international forums be translated into practical protection for people affected by conflict?

This question applies across all situations of armed conflict, regardless of geography, political considerations, or strategic interests.

The credibility of the international legal order ultimately depends upon narrowing the gap between principle and practice.

The Arria-Formula meeting was a reminder that international law cannot be universal in its language while selective in its implementation. If the international community is committed to a rules-based order, then the standards it upholds must be applied consistently and impartially.

For millions of people living amid conflict, the measure of international law is not found only in resolutions or declarations, but in whether those principles provide meaningful protection, accountability, and hope for a peaceful future.

*Chairman, World Forum for Peace and Justice

Pressenza London