Abstract: Zimbabwe’s rejection of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Tribunal ruling in 2008 and subsequent withdrawal from it in 2009 raised a lot of questions pertaining to the interplay of law and politics in resolving conflicts. The ruling sought to press the Zimbabwean government to put an end to the grabbing of farms and properties of white land owners in Zimbabwe. This followed the Fast Track Land Reform Programme which Zimbabwe embarked on in 2000. The programme received condemnation from the international community. Among the affected white farmers were Mike Campbell who and others, brought the matter to be heard in the SADC Tribunal in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the SADC Protocol. The case became known as Campbell and 78 others v Zimbabwe, the Campbell case in short. The decision of the SADC Tribunal in Campbell and 78 others v The Republic of Zimbabwe Case 2/2007 in which judgment was delivered on 28 November, 2008 will be used to analyze the nexus between politics and international law in resolving conflicts. Zimbabwe dismissed the ruling on the constitutional basis that the SADC Tribunal is not superior to Zimbabwean national courts. Various other conflicting reasons are to account for the country’s stance towards the ruling of the court. From a political perspective, this study analyses the complex relationship between international law and politics in settling disputes. The conclusion drawn from this contribution is that politics takes centre stage in resolving conflicts involving international law. To fail to recognise this is a fools errand which encourages wishful thinking which confronted with reality will fail.