Reinforcing Adherence to International Law

Why the problem is not institutional absence, but institutional non-adherence

Premise

The central weakness of the contemporary international order is not a lack of institutions. It is the selective disregard of binding commitments already undertaken, including the Charter of the United Nations and treaty obligations that states have signed, ratified, and repeatedly reaffirmed.

The problem is not institutional absence. The problem is institutional non-adherence.

When adherence becomes optional, new structures do not restore order. They multiply discretion. In this environment, parallel forums, ad hoc peace boards, and leader-driven mechanisms can appear efficient while accelerating long-term legitimacy loss.

Relation to Institutional Drift

The Geneva Charter uses the term Institutional Drift to describe the gradual substitution of law-based mandate with parallel or extralegal arrangements. One recurring mechanism within this category is the Extralegal Peace Mechanism (EPM).

These pages document institutional properties and governance effects rather than political intent.

The false solution

In periods of frustration, it is tempting to treat international law as slow and to treat new mechanisms as necessary innovation. The Geneva Charter records a consistent pattern: when new mechanisms bypass mandate and universality, they may produce ceremony but not durable settlement.

Parallel governance does not compensate for ignored commitments. It normalizes their irrelevance.

A lawful way forward

Restoring lawful order does not require inventing more institutions. It requires reinstating discipline around existing commitments and making non-adherence visible, costly, and politically undeniable.

Core actions

Re-anchor obligations: Treat the UN Charter and treaty commitments as operational constraints, not symbolic references.
Name non-adherence precisely: Replace euphemism with accurate institutional language.
Condition participation: Where lawful and feasible, link access, recognition, and convening privileges to baseline adherence.
Restore process discipline: Reinforce procedural integrity inside existing institutions rather than routing around them.
Reduce forum shopping: Prefer legally continuous channels for settlement and reconstruction governance.

A rules-based order cannot be maintained by rhetoric. It is maintained by adherence, consistency, and consequence.

Implementation discipline

The Geneva Charter emphasizes that adherence is not an abstract ideal. It is a practical condition for durable settlement: predictable procedure, accountable authority, and continuity across political cycles. Without these, peace becomes contingent on personalities and temporary alignments.

The Charter therefore treats institutional drift as a warning indicator and adherence reinforcement as a primary corrective. This is a system maintenance problem, not a system design problem.

This Charter sets reference standards. It does not substitute for political judgment or institutional process.

Institutional Drift – Taxonomy anchor for mandate bypass and parallel governance patterns.
Extralegal Peace Mechanisms (EPM) – Concept note defining EPM, parallel authority, and norm erosion.
Peace Without Law – Reference case illustrating EPM dynamics and legitimacy risk.

This page is part of the Geneva Charter Library’s Institutional Drift classification.

Reference metadata

Document type: Guidance note
Primary thesis: The problem is non-adherence to existing obligations, not institutional absence
Primary risks addressed: Parallel authority, norm erosion, forum shopping
Related classification: Institutional Drift