The Palestinian Question and the Limits of International Law

Abstract

The following work analyzes the crisis of international law from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the action of the International Criminal Court and other institutions of international law, whose appropriateness is challenged by selectivity and double standards in the prosecution of international crimes. The objective is to unravel the boundaries of the international legal order and explore alternatives that can sustain its legitimacy. The hypothesis holds that international law, as conceived under the liberal universalist paradigm, is undergoing a collapse that opens the way to the resurgence of sovereignist projects inspired by the conservative spectrum and ethnonationalism, while proposals such as those of Luigi Ferrajoli represent an effort to rescue its universalist vocation through a democratic global constitutionalism. The methodology is qualitative, doctrinal and critical-comparative analysis, relying on authors such as Schmitt, Ferrajoli, and Kochi, in addition to references to UN resolutions and ICC jurisprudence. The results confirm that the integrity of international law is compromised both by the political instrumentalization of its institutions and by the emergence of ethnic-cultural sovereignisms that challenge its universality. However, it is recognized that normative proposals such as Ferrajoli offer a possible horizon for reconstituting a global framework of guarantees against “system crimes” and the transition stage of the global system.