Despite discordant voices within the discipline, scholars may be in general agreement that the fundamental motivations behind the Third World Approaches to International Law (‘TWAIL’) have been resistance against the universalisation of international law (‘IL’) and grounding IL discourse to the ‘have-nots’. The evolution of TWAIL is descriptive of its uncertain relationship with sovereignty and the statist foundations guiding IL. With the global rise of weaponised conservatism and a disregard for the Western liberal framework, TWAIL must deliver on its unfulfilled promises. In the larger backdrop of the diminishing relevance of IL, there is a need to reconcile the seemingly incompatible motivations of TWAIL with the statist realities of IL. The paper attempts to make this reconciliation by circling back TWAIL discourse to accept the rehabilitation of the ‘Third World State’ as the ethical actor of IL. This is simultaneously complemented by the rise of the TWAIL lawyer as the fulcrum of accountability between the have-nots and the Third World State.
