The article looks at how India and Iraq deal with international law bodies, paying special attention to their pledges, how often they keep them, and how this affects world government.    Both countries are in Asia, yet their legal, political, and institutional systems handle international law in quite different ways.    India, the largest democracy in the world and a rising force, has long worked hard to establish that it is a responsible member of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and other specialized groups.    It is based on rule-based multilateralism, following international treaties, and claiming sovereign authority in a way that is not fair when national interests are at risk.    Iraq, on the other hand, has a harder time following the rules and going against them because it has been through years of war, sanctions, and changes in government.    It works with the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and groups that work to protect human rights. However, these groups often point out problems with enforcement, rebuilding after a conflict, and not having enough institutional capacity.

This article situates India and Iraq within the overarching context of global legal order, thereby enriching comparative international law scholarship and examining the influence of diverse compliance patterns from the Global South on the evolving legitimacy and efficacy of international law organizations.   The findings indicate that participation in international legal institutions is influenced by factors beyond mere formal responsibilities.  The stability of the country's politics, the strength of its economy, and its geopolitical direction also play a role.

The comparative analysis showed that India uses its involvement to improve its legitimacy and status in the world, while Iraq's involvement is often reactive and influenced by outside forces and conditions set by international organizations.    The most noticeable distinctions are in how treaties are signed, how human rights reports are made, and how disagreements are settled.    Both countries nevertheless agree that they are sovereign because they think foreign groups are overstepping their bounds...