is in a state of flux (as it has been since about 1993 or so) and that changes will occur. He's trying to point out a direction that some of the changes should take. Most make sense. I could quibble a bit but it makes no difference so why bother?

There really is no international law. Webster's preferred definition is:

" (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority."

As described by the first clause there is 'international law' but the "binding" element is suspect at best; nations will be bound as long as it is in their interest to do so. When that ceases, there is no binding...

The second clause is nearer reality. Note that it requires said binding (with all that does or does not imply) or, more importantly, enforcement by a controlling authority. The closest thing internationally to such an authority is the UN yet it really has no enforcement capability (and it should not). Essentially, lacking a world government (which none of us alive today are likely to see. Fortunately and thankfully...), there can be no true international law, only international norms which most nations will adhere to most of the time -- and that's okay, it's adequate for a 90+ % solution.

That almost good solution will still be designed to favor the State and will be less than helpful to the weak...

Which is about as good as you can expect in reality (with no quotes about it )