INTERNATIONAL LAW IS GOVERNED not only by formal rules but also by narratives that attach meaning to those rules. This occurrence is “legal storytelling” and has developed as a powerful tool in international law. Narratives can also challenge dominant ideas, reveal inequalities, and foster empathy among decision-makers.
However, as Susan Mark points out, international law is not simply a neutral system of rules but a battlefield where dominant narratives often justify the interests of powerful actors. Thus, legal narratives are frequently employed strategically to amplify international norms and secure informational authority, as seen in Russia's justifications for invading Ukraine or the United States' rationale for 'preventive war' in Iraq.
On the morning of April 13, Israel attacked Iranian nuclear and military installations, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter by portraying Iran's alleged uranium weaponisation as an imminent threat to both international peace and Israel's national security. Such legal justification through storytelling is not a new technique; just as the U.S. manufactured legal legitimacy for the war on Iraq through a carefully constructed narrative of 'preventive war', Israel today employs similar discourse to justify its actions in Gaza and its strike on Iran.
These examples illustrate that legal storytelling functions not merely to determine legal positions but to construct legitimacy and refine legal identity. Against this background, this post examines the role of narrative setting in claiming legal identity under International Law. It argues that not only treaties or customs form a legal identity, but narrative framing through storytelling is also central to international law governance. While legal storytelling is open to all parties, in practice and actuality, structural hierarchies decide which story prevails, especially when superpowers have the capacity to manufacture consent for the story to prevail.
