The main finding of this dissertation is that international law matters to the pathology of plenty though how is context-dependent and sometimes unpredictable. It proposes that international law can play a constitutive, preventive, remedial and perhaps even punitive role in resource-cursed societies. It reviews how norms from fields such as general international law, international organisations law, humanitarian law, human rights law, anti-corruption law and foreign investment law are implicated in, or responsive to the pathology of plenty. Focusing on the context in which relevant norms emerged and the ways, in which they have been used, this dissertation not only differentiate between states, but also investigate the role of public and non-governmental organisations, companies, intellectuals, communities and politicians. By breaking up the black box of states in this way, I discover that the statecentrism embedded in modern legal principles is foundational for some of the patterns that are now associated with the resource curse. Yet, law can also respond to the resource curse, most evidently legal frameworks specifically designed to improve fairness and reduce theft in resources trade. Overall, this dissertation finds that normative frameworks and rules have become increasingly reactive to the resource curse. Yet, international law cannot revert power and property structures which are characteristic of resource-cursed countries but it can be used to ease some of the worst outcomes of resources extraction.