International law is often seen as esoteric, remote, even irrelevant. Most people, if they think about it at all, assume that it happens between governments behind closed doors and is immaterial to their day-to-day lives. International lawyers sometimes inadvertently feed these impressions. The field brims with acronyms, Latin phrases, and technical shorthand that only insiders can fully understand. Moreover, when international law is in the news, it is usually because it has been violated. The United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, for instance, only became a focus of widespread public concern when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an unlawful invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Geneva Conventions’ protections for civilians elicited extensive news coverage in response to alleged war crimes in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine. The prohibition on starvation as a tool of warfare gained attention because Israel was accused of violating it by preventing the distribution of food aid into Gaza. And so on. By contrast, the public rarely notices the many quiet successes of international law: the invasions that do not happen, the military strikes that do not occur, and starvation that is averted.

Because international law typically comes to the public’s attention when it is broken, there is deep skepticism that it makes any real difference. This suspicion is compounded by the absence of the ordinary forms of enforcement associated with domestic law. Observers wonder: Is international law really law at all if there are no police or courts with compulsory jurisdiction to hold violators to account?

And yet there are more hopeful signs, too. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was condemned by the vast majority of UN member states, and international support for Ukraine’s defense has allowed it to hold its own against its more powerful neighbor. The International Court of Justice is busier than ever, as states have filed briefs relating to some of the most contentious geopolitical conflicts for judicial resolution. The average number of cases before the court has doubled, annual requests for provisional measures have quadrupled, and its 2024 hearings on states’ climate obligations drew oral statements from a record ninety-six states. States around the world, especially from the Global South, have demonstrated their faith that international law can make a real difference by seeking the court’s involvement in their disputes. Meanwhile, more than 100 states are participating in an effort led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to rethink and strengthen international humanitarian law (IHL). Governments’ and AI leaders alike have recently called for international regulation of rapidly evolving AI technology. Clearly, while international law is under stress, it remains a critical tool for addressing some of the most pressing global problems.

On May 8, 2026, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the American Society of International Law, and Lex International convened a workshop so that a small group of experts and practitioners could discuss how to speak about international law in a manner that can better resonate with the public. The discussion brought together scholars, legal practitioners, leaders of international organizations, and communications professionals from around the world.

The workshop was inspired by a shared conviction: The weaknesses of international law reflect, in part, a communications failure. We cannot expect publics to support international law and the international institutions that create and apply it if they do not understand what it is, how it works, or why it matters. Nor can we expect the leaders of democracies to champion international law if the citizens they represent do not value it. Unfortunately, international law experts often have difficulty communicating in a way that non-experts can understand. The American Society of International Law and Lex International have both encountered this challenge, finding that positive stories about international law often fail to reach audiences beyond those who already know about and believe in it. In sum, international law does not only have an enforcement problem; it also has a PR problem. How do we bridge that gap?

Lessons from Solutions Journalism: Focus Less on Problems and More on Possibilities

International law is not alone in facing the problems it does. David Bornstein, co-founder and chief executive officer of the Solutions Journalism Network, started by laying out the problem faced by modern journalism: The media’s relentless focus on failure is incredibly disempowering and drives disengagement. Globally, more than 40 percent of people now say they sometimes or often avoid the news, most often because it dampens their mood or because they feel there is nothing they can do with the information they read. The human nervous system was simply not built to constantly carry the pain of the whole world,¹ and yet the vast majority of stories focus on crises and breakdowns. Rather than eliciting empathy and a sense of urgency to fix things, the endless drumbeat of negativity and the lack of obvious avenues for action leaves audiences overwhelmed and disheartened, pushing them to either deny the message, blame the messenger, distract themselves, or believe in mis- or disinformation.

The human nervous system was simply not built to constantly carry the pain of the whole world.

The analogy to international law is clear: We cannot keep framing the climate crisis, for example, as a problem that is both apocalyptic and unsolvable, and expect people to engage. Similarly, we cannot expect people to defend international law if all they hear is that it is doomed to fail.

“Solutions journalism” aims to solve these problems by investigating and explaining, in a critical and clear-eyed way, how people try to solve widely shared problems—and often succeed. While the media typically defines news as “what’s gone wrong,” focusing overwhelmingly on negative stories documenting crises and failures, solutions journalism encourages journalists to see responses to problems as equally newsworthy. This approach allows journalists to discover “an entire continent” of newsworthy stories, often hiding in plain sight. Done well, solutions stories provide insights that help communities with the difficult work of tackling problems.

The Solutions Journalism Network has trained more than 92,000 journalists in eighty countries. Guided by the question “who’s doing better, and how?,” its members create narratives that tap into readers’ curiosity about how communities address thorny problems or solve intriguing puzzles. For example, why do villagers in Bangladesh pay back their microfinance loans at a 98 percent rate? This story—and thousands more—are recorded on the Solutions Story Tracker.

Academic research has revealed that the biggest impact on our social behavior is often what we think other people are doing.² If we believe that others are complying with the law, for example, that will incentivize us to comply. If we suspect everyone else is defecting from a rule, we are more likely to do the same.

This approach offers lessons for international law: Communicating effectively about international law’s role implies rebalancing the public’s attention to focus less on its deterioration than on the broader story of its resilience, less on the problems that face it and more on the possibilities it creates. Such a reframing sends the accurate message that the most common global behavior (the norm) is compliance with international law, not its violation, and helps prevent narratives of international law’s erosion from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some helpful examples of this already exist: The ICRC, for instance, maintains an IHL in Action database that documents cases in which states and non-state armed groups have complied with international humanitarian law in targeting, detention, and humanitarian access. Solutions journalism teaches us that international law advocates should look for more ways to demonstrate how international law can be used to make a positive difference in the world.

What Values Does International Law Protect and Enable?

International law often enters the broader public discourse when it is broken. When that happens, international legal experts are often called on to explain what went wrong—and what rules were broken. This focus can fuel an impression that the law is always ineffective. It can also feed the impression that international law is all about punishing states and individuals for breaking the rules. That then feeds the narrative that international law is all about constraints and that it is in tension with state sovereignty.

Advocates of international law should aim to bring greater attention to what international law makes possible.

To shift the public perception of international law, advocates of international law should aim to bring greater attention to what international law makes possible. To connect back to the solutions journalism discussion—we should refocus the narrative on how international law can help us solve the big and important problems that individuals, states, and the global community face.

When asked to reflect on what values international law protects and enables across the many diverse substantive areas it covers, the workshop participants focused on three: First, cooperation. International law is a tool to pursue shared values and interests. Second, predictability. By committing states to take actions, follow rules, and participate in institutions, international law provides them with greater clarity about what states can expect from one another, allowing them to plan and invest in ways that are most productive, not least in the global economy. Third, values. This was articulated in different ways—with participants mentioning peace, human rights, common humanity, fairness, equality, dignity, universality, a livable world, and the rule of law as critical benefits. Over the last eight decades, for instance, international law has underpinned the human rights revolution, providing an essential tool for protecting universal principles from assault, even at the hands of the state itself.

International lawyers have struggled to communicate these benefits. Too often, they speak in the language of acronyms, case citations, and obscure treaties—losing non-expert audiences in the process. A more effective approach would be to speak less about legal instruments and more about what the law is trying to achieve. Instead of invoking “the obligation to follow Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,” for instance, defenders of international law might explain that the United Nations was founded after World War II with the aim of promoting international peace and security—that is, preventing another world war. Instead of noting that states are not permitted to impose tariffs on goods and services in violation of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, lest they face countermeasures authorized by the Dispute Settlement Body, they could explain that international law aims to promote common prosperity and allow people who make things to sell them not only at home but abroad as well. Rather than speak of the “CAT” and the state’s obligation of “non-refoulement,” they could say that 176 nations have committed not to send refugees back to their home countries to face torture. In short, when seeking to reach a non-expert audience, international lawyers should reflect on the value that the law is serving and speak to that purpose, rather than focus exclusively on the importance of following the law for its own sake.

Leading with the why matters, because evidence shows that the support for the core protections enshrined in international law remains very strong. In a survey run by Lex International in 2025 across nine countries, for example, over 86 percent of respondents rejected the notion that “might makes right”; over 80 percent opposed torture, starvation sieges, attacks on hospitals and other violations; and 71 percent wanted their governments to do more to enforce international law. This was true even in places like the United States where support for international law as an instrument was weaker than elsewhere. In short, the why of international law seems to resonate a lot more with the public than the how, and therefore, communication gets a lot more traction when it focuses on the ends as opposed to the means.

Who Is the Audience?

Who are we seeking to reach when we speak about international law? Are we aiming to connect with the general public, U.S. foreign policy experts, government officials, business leaders, or students? And what do we want those audiences to do as a result? These are critical questions to ask, even if the answers may not be the same for all members of the community. In general, international legal scholars are quite effective at reaching one another, but less effective outside that bubble.

When asked who they would like to reach, many attendees pointed to journalists, not only as the end consumer but as critical conduits to multiple audiences. As several participants noted, however, academic incentives tend not to reward media engagement by international legal scholars. This is especially true for untenured professors, who may fear coming off as biased advocates rather than unbiased experts, as well as being misquoted or saying something wrong that may haunt them later. And even among those at little risk, spending an hour on the phone with a reporter for a one-sentence (or sometimes no) quotation may feel like a waste of time.

Most international lawyers who engage the media are ultimately seeking to reach policymakers, to shape government decisions. That may counsel in favor of designing outreach aimed at senior officials and those directly connected to them. In some cases, the target may even be an audience of one—the U.S. president, for instance, or the secretary of defense (or his/her chief of staff).

And yet in a democracy, political leaders are unlikely to invest significant time and energy in advancing interests and pursuing policies that their constituents do not understand or value. Accordingly, robust government support for international law ultimately depends on building and sustaining a domestic political constituency that favors adherence to these principles. The international legal community must therefore try to reach the broader public, recognizing that an informed citizenry is essential for the rule of law abroad no less than at home.

Simultaneously, legal scholars must work to educate their own law students about the critical importance of international law, even if most of them will never practice it. These students will be the lawyers, judges, and policymakers of the future, so reaching them is an important first step to broadening the circle of those who know about, understand, and value international law. In most civil law countries, international law training is part of a standard law degree. That is not true in the United States, and it shows in the lack of familiarity with—and thus support for—international law among most U.S. lawyers, judges, and policymakers.

If AI models reflect common misunderstandings of international law, the future of international law is bleak.

Finally, participants posited that an emerging audience for international legal scholars are the AI systems that people increasingly consult to shape their opinions and positions. Ensuring that AI models are informed by robust grounding in international law is critical to the future of international law. After all, if AI models reflect common misunderstandings of international law, the future of international law is bleak.

What Works and What Doesn’t in the Age of New Media?

Traditional journalists have long been seen as the best way to reach a broader public. But today traditional media is playing less of a role in spreading messages. New media is more important than ever. 

Aidan Walker, then the new media manager at Carnegie, introduced us to the fast-changing role of new media and helped us think about how it moves ideas. The new media ecosystem is diverse, encompassing vertical video platforms (TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts), text platforms (such as Twitter, Bluesky, and Substack), and forum-type platforms (such as Facebook and Reddit), as well as podcasts and newsletters. As he explained, new media has several distinguishing features: It is built and hosted on privately owned platforms, rather than mediated through traditional institutions; it is structured by interactive co-creation between audiences and makers; it exists outside of traditional gatekeepers and monetization paths; it is accessed via computer or smartphone; and its distribution is strongly influenced by algorithms that enhance discovery, connectivity, and community.

International law experts are more accustomed to engaging with legacy media platforms like television and newspapers. Today, however, those seeking to influence public attitudes and public policy—including international lawyers—cannot afford to ignore social media.

At the same time, leveraging new media requires a more informal approach to communication, less reliant on appeals to authority than on the appearance of authenticity. What makes these channels so powerful is the interaction between the influencer and the audience, mediated through the intimacy of a hand-held device. The influencer gains legitimacy by responding to the audience, anticipating their interests, and being seen to represent them in the broader public discourse. Most startlingly (particularly from the perspective of a legal expert), being an influencer requires no credentials or qualifications—and nobody is obligated to listen.

Leveraging new media requires a more informal approach to communication, less reliant on appeals to authority than on the appearance of authenticity.

The insights into what makes new media so effective connects to some of the insights drawn from solutions journalism. In the new media environment, consumers who engage with new media are seeking a feeling of efficacy. Old media is a one-way communication tool. New media is interactive. Followers make influencers influential by following them and amplifying their messages. The audience members engage intensely because they feel a sense of investment and control: They can influence the influencers through comments, likes, and reposts. In this world, staying remote and above the fray—the traditional role for experts—is no longer an option for those who want to get a message out.

Engaging with new media is without a doubt a cultural shift for most international legal scholars, who tend to be more at home writing law review articles than engaging audiences on social media. For those who find the culture shift too daunting, it may be advantageous to partner with new media content creators with established reputations as authentic messengers and effective storytellers. For example, some Carnegie scholars have forged valuable alliances with streamers and other influencers operating in related fields. One is senior fellow Sarah Labowitz, who studies federal responses to climate disasters (and maintains Carnegie’s Disaster Dollar Database). She has partnered with a prominent storm chaser with an enormous online following to draw attention to shortcomings in emergency services and recovery aid for devastated communities. This collaboration has paid concrete policy dividends, including joint visits to Capitol Hill to engage and brief U.S. legislators.

In sum, international legal experts should think about how to enable their audience to feel engaged rather than lectured to. We need to not only focus on showing how international law can be used to solve problems in the world but also invite our audience to join that project alongside us.

Looking Ahead: An Agenda for Change

The workshop closed by asking participants what insights they had gleaned from the day, and what they might do differently as a result. Their answers pointed to a two-part agenda: a set of changes in how the field communicates and concrete projects that are either already underway or could begin quickly.

The first change concerns what we lead with. International law is a means to an end, and the field has a habit of talking about the instrument itself rather than the objective it serves. Lex International has tried to speak less about international humanitarian law as a source of legal obligation and more about what it is meant to achieve: protecting people from war. Other formulations will suit other areas; what matters is putting the why in front of the what. This also bears on the vocabulary that international lawyers use. Leading with obscure terms that divide audiences gives them a position to defend before they have even engaged with the substance, whereas a more effective argument is often made by talking about relatable problems first and arriving at the necessary legal framework later.

The second change concerns how we situate the present moment. Cataloguing what is going wrong, without setting it against what has been built since 1945, invites the conclusion that there is nothing left worth defending. Placing today’s violations in the bigger picture of what has been achieved in the last eighty years changes the question from whether international law has failed to what is at stake if it actually does, and it gives an audience a reason to care about the answer. It shifts the frame of discussion to: “What is worth defending, and why?”

Third, people are hungry for information that gives them a sense of agency: a confidence that the world is not falling apart, that things are being done, and that they too have a role to play. That calls for building and maintaining a shared record of what is working—and evidence that it is making a tangible difference to their own lives. Some of this exists already: the ICRC’s “IHL in Action” database and ASIL’s “International Law: 100 Ways It Shapes our Lives” both serve this function. Additional iterations could for example showcase 100 problems solved by international law. The European Society of International Law, we learned, is already planning a “100 objects shaped by international law” initiative. This is an effort to make the law concrete and its impact on daily life transparent.

Fourth, the field has long relied on the standing of its advocates to carry its message, but that works poorly in an environment where audiences are skeptical of traditional authorities and institutions, including experts and established media. The messenger matters. Reaching audiences means working with the people who know how to reach those who are not already steeped in international law—such as influencers and content creators, who now function in some respects as representatives. Lex International has experimented with content creator workshops on subjects including autonomous weapons systems and the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. All agreed that the format of communication deserves more experimentation. We need to do more to invite our audience to join us in our work.

Fifth, and relatedly, the field may take itself too seriously. The framing of games is instructive. You cannot play a game without rules, and children accept this long before they can articulate why. Policymakers, lawyers, and others may disagree about what sovereignty means, but they still share a commitment to playing by the rules and to using rules to cooperate. That common ground is worth foregrounding at a moment when the argument is often about whether to have any rules at all.

Sixth, and last, there is much more work to do. Inspired by the workshop, the Canadian Council on International Law has organized the Fourth World Meeting of Societies for International Law in June 2027 around the theme, “How to Talk About International Law? Narratives, Participation, Action.” This global convening recognizes the critical importance of these issues for the future of international law. This conversation has just begun.