The future of international law can be analyzed from two different perspectives and in order to give a detailed account of these perspectives, we will ask the question Is the international right to die? The first perspective on the future of international law is the school of thought who believes that international law dies and the reasons for this school go further to support their arguments are:
Firstly, this school claims that the current world order is in flux: for example, the United States has been in war continuously since the beginning of the twenty-first century and in most cases the reasons the United States has emphasized by America to support such war is the belief that such war is in their national interest or when the United States considers that their national interest is threatened or at stake if such war is not carried out. A typical occurrence, in this case, is the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, although the United States did not receive the right to proceed to begin the war. There is probably little chance that the continued war's state will soon end at any time and that the world must adapt to the idea that there is always the possibility of a war event. The consequence of the possibility of such a constant war between states in international law is that military solutions in dispute settlement will be given much priority than diplomatic means to resolve a dispute that is not what international law advocates.
The European Power, one of the world's strongest nations, has now been gathered to form the European Union in order to maintain some influence over the world's state by enhancing economic integration and strengthening the company between member states and largely protecting Europe's interest. You can not predict the ideas of what Russia wants or what it intends to be in the near future. Track the relationship between Russia and the United States back to the Cold War era where there was a great tension between these two countries and Russia finally collapsing and leaving the United States to be the world's superpower. A few years later, however, there was a much more peaceful company between the United States and Russia, which was more or less like allies, but lately it is not just a kind of antagonistic relationship between the two countries. Russia's future intention in this sense is unpredictable. Will Russia and Europe or Russia intend to rise again against the United States in the future?
A country like the People's Republic of China, which has recently emerged as a strong economic power in the world, may also have its intentions in becoming the world's superpower. Should China rise to compete the United States to become the world's superpower? What do countries like the People's Republic of China, India and Russia want to achieve or achieve in the near future, especially as regards the current state of the United States, because the world's superpower is uncertain. The Middle East is in a constant state of concern that will not end anytime soon.
A critical observation of all these events and events in the world shows that the world's system of international law sought to create after World War II is not what is set in modern terms and as such, this school of thought is saying that international law is to die because the systems it builds gradually fade away.
Secondly, international law is based primarily on Western ideas. It was based on Western principles and ideas. Sources of international law have primarily been Western. For example, when we talk about customary international law, we actually refer to the customs that occurred in the West and not what happened in Asia, Africa or other parts of the world. Once again, when we talk about general principles, we speak of the general principles of the West and not about any other countries outside the West. So, in essence, international law was based on western legal traditions, but in the present world of one hundred ninety-five (192) countries, the meaning and influence of Western ideas and beliefs that international law is based on is largely no influence anymore and as such, the international law judges because the basis for the foundation is dying.
Sate, formerly an important institution in international law, is primarily falsified. That is, the state used to be the main actor in international law, but is becoming less important as its role gradually fades. For example, the attack on the United States was September 11, 2001 by a non-governmental entity, a group called Al-Qaeda as specific. Al-Qaeda runs across state borders, and as such, one can not empathically point out that a state has been responsible for hosting such groups.
The above points and others may be the reasons why some researchers have advanced that the international law dies. The other way of thinking claims that international law does not die but rather becomes much stronger than what used to be.