In this article, we examine the relationship between modern international law and the political-legal discourse of the United States of America, focusing on critical analysis, and examining the role of the United States in shaping, interpreting, and implementing international norms. The main question is: *How does the United States use a specific discursive logic to justify its actions within the framework of international law, and what impact has this approach had on the validity and functioning of international law?* The findings show that the United States, with a combination of hard and soft power, uses discourses such as "defending democracy" or "fighting terrorism" to advance its national interests, sometimes in conflict with the fundamental principles of international law. These contradictions have created challenges to the universality and impartiality of international law. American discourse in international law includes the ideas and arguments that the country presents to legitimize its positions and actions. On the other hand, the strategic perspective emphasizes the analysis of the position, goals, and consequences of American policies and discourses in shaping the international legal system. Research findings show that the U.S., although playing a decisive role in shaping many of the institutions and fundamental rules of modern international law, has in many cases taken a selective approach to international rules, reinterpreting or ignoring them to serve its national and strategic interests. This has created a kind of gap between normative discourse and political practice, leading to consequences such as weakening the rule of law in the international system, reducing the legitimacy of international institutions, and increasing distrust among states toward the global legal order.