The Role of International Law in Combatting Enforced Disappearances

Oleh: Firdoos Khan – 23410877

Students of the Undergraduate Law Study Program International Program Faculty of Law, Islamic University of Indonesia

The barbaric act of enforced disappearance, in which state agents take people into custody and then deny detaining them, is still being used as a chilling weapon of terror and a powerful violation of international law (United Nations General Assembly, 2006). Recent reports from UN human rights bodies include the review of 689 cases from 41 countries by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) at its 135th session in January 2025 (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025).. There is an advanced legal structure to combat this crime, but in the real world, it is hindered by political self-interest and a lack of enforcement authority, as well as the yawning chasm that separates legal theory from hard reality for the families of the victims. At its heart, the problem is not a paucity of rules but a catastrophe of will enforce them.

The major legal tool is the Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance (CPED). This treaty is strong in theory. It characterizes forced disappearance as a transnational offense; requires states to investigate and charge the perpetrators; and assures the families of the truth (Decaux, 2011). Its most powerful weapon is that of universal jurisdiction, permitting any country to prosecute a perpetrator found on its territory, to deny any refuge to him (United Nations, 2006, Arts. 9 & 13). This is supported by the ICC, under which disappearances may be prosecuted as a crime against humanity (International Criminal Court, 2011). However, this entire system rests on shaky ground, relying on state consent. The CPED is a highly ineffective tool against the very states who use this tactic the most; as of 2025 there are only 77 states party, and major powers such as China, the United States, and Russia are outside its grasp, openly focusing on sovereignty over human rights (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025). The law, therefore, doesn’t apply to those who have their hand up.

This enforcement gap is brilliantly displayed in the stark contrast between the various international cases. The Inter-American Court’s 2011 Gelman v. Uruguay case shows how the system operates. The court forced Uruguay to look at its past, overturn its amnesty laws and compensate for arrests that took place during their dictatorship, showing that regional pressure works (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2011). But this success is the exception not the rule. The case of Syria is the rule. An estimated hundred thousand people disappeared into state prisons after the conflict broke out there (UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, 2023). The international response has been a spectacular failure. The ICC is paralyzed because the UN Security Council, where Russia and China have veto power, has blocked any referral for investigation. This is not a legal failure but a raw political one, where geopolitical reality explicitly protects mass murderers and torturers from any accountability (Human Rights Watch, 2024). The law is present, but completely negated by power politics is indifferent.

It is not enough to rely on international treaties and courts of justice because the latter depend on a flawed system where the most powerful criminals can walk free. The most practical way is to come up with ways of working around those governments that will not cooperate. Some examples: sanctions go directly against individuals as shown by blocked property of Syrian and Venezuelan officials introduced by the European Union. In this way an immediate personal punishment can be delivered without waiting for global agreement or court action. This is a direct form of economic pressure. Groups of local activists formed by the families of victims, such as FEDEFAM, are equally important. They help give up evidence, publicly hold governments to account and stop victims from being forgotten, doing this basic work that governments often refuse to do. One significant success story is FEDEFAM’s role in Chile, where their continued advocacy and collection of evidence led to the reopening of several cold cases from the Pinochet era, eventually resulting in several convictions. This illustrates the concrete impact that local activism can have, providing a model of citizen leverage that can be emulated elsewhere.

In conclusion, enforced disappearance has been appropriately identified in international law as a heinous crime and given a legal form in the search for justice. But in the worst cases, it doesn’t really stop it. It’s not that the laws are no good, but powerful nations can keep them from being enforced with their veto on the U.N. Security Council and many won’t sign on to the agreements at all. We cannot just wait until the international politics change, because of this. Instead, we need to deploy other tools more aggressively: empowering national courts to prosecute perpetrators found in their countries, employing targeted sanctions to freeze assets and limit travel, and vigorously supporting the grassroots organizations that fight for victims daily. A network of courts, activists, and financial watchdogs could create an accountability network that can apply sustained pressure from multiple angles. Real justice won’t happen solely through a far-off international court; it will be made real by sustained pressure and action where the crimes are taking place.