Our era—what Mark Carney called a time of “global rupture”—is often described as following the “law of the jungle,” where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. International law seems shattered, and multilateral organizations appear hollowed out. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s assault on Gaza, and the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran and Lebanon seem to confirm this bleak view. But if you look closer, these wars actually offer a different, much brighter clue about the way forward.
Russia, once seen as a formidable military power, was expected to easily overwhelm Ukraine—a much smaller and weaker country backed by a divided, fearful, and hesitant West. Even after the war settled into a long stalemate, the common belief was that Ukraine was doomed to lose. But the story has changed.
Yes, Russia has trampled all over international law and remains the stronger side, both militarily and in terms of population. Yes, Donald Trump’s US has betrayed Ukraine, and while European support has been strong and steady, it’s still not enough. Yet Ukraine stands tall.
In the Middle East, the US and Israel attacked Iran twice, again in clear violation of international law. European leaders, who were initially shamefully vague about the legality, eventually admitted as much. There was never any doubt about who held the power: the US, the world’s major military superpower, alongside Israel, which was trying to assert itself as the regional hegemon, struck Iran—a country weakened by internal protests and an unprecedented wave of repression. Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Trump that one final push would topple the Islamic Republic like a house of cards.
Four months later, the US and the same Iranian regime—now younger, more militaristic, and more hardline—agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that reopened the Strait of Hormuz. The MoU effectively recognizes Iranian control of the strait, expects its frozen assets to start flowing again, and temporarily waives oil sanctions as nuclear negotiations resume. This was the best deal Trump could get, but it wasn’t a good deal for the US or Israel—and criticism in both countries is growing. Still, this doesn’t change the implicit acknowledgment in the MoU that the strongest didn’t win.
These two wars are both serious violations of international law and show that even those at the top of the food chain can fail.
Will Europe—which has stood with Kyiv and international law while hypocritically flirting with abandoning it in the Middle East—use this moment to reaffirm its commitment to international norms? There are two encouraging signs.
A coalition of about 40 countries, led by France and the UK, has put together a taskforce to be sent to the Strait of Hormuz to clear mines and secure the waterway for shipping. This initiative shows Europe’s willingness to play an active and constructive role. It revives Europe’s multilateral instincts by involving a broad group of countries not directly involved in the fighting. It also makes clear that any deployment would be based on international law and coordinated with all coastal states, starting with Iran.
The operation probably won’t go ahead. Much like the “coalition of the willing” to deploy a reassurance force in Ukraine after a ceasefire, the hypothetical Hormuz coalition is mainly about managing the US—it’s a signal to Washington that while European governments weren’t willing to fight in the war, they’re ready to help secure the peace. But Trump has made it clear he’s not interested in Europe’s overtures, as he repeated at the G7 summit in Evian. Above all, Iran rejects the idea of European warships in the strait. Without Tehran’s consent, Europeans admit, there will be no operation.
A second European initiative—one that’s far more concrete and useful—has quietly taken shape under the radar. Norway, which has strong political credentials in the Middle East (having clearly condemned…From the very beginning, a country like Spain, which opposed the war, has both credibility and expertise in the law of the sea. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been ratified by most countries, with a few exceptions like the US, Israel, and Iran. The good news is that even though the US and Iran aren’t parties to UNCLOS, they both want to respect its rules in the Strait. Norway has therefore provided valuable legal advice to Iran, Oman, and mediators from Pakistan and Qatar, ensuring that any post-strait arrangements follow UNCLOS’s core principle: freedom of navigation. It’s through this kind of quiet, soft, and demand-driven contribution that Europeans can rebuild their credibility and play a useful role in the region.
Where European credibility is completely shattered is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just like in Lebanon, Europe’s “concern” about Israel’s actions hasn’t turned into real policy. Israel’s violation of international law is most severe, as it faces no accountability for its war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide in Gaza. European governments have played a big part in shielding Israel from its international legal obligations.
But change might finally be coming. EU sanctions on extremist Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich won’t happen because they need unanimous approval, which is impossible. However, it’s the Israeli state that should be held accountable, not just individual ministers. A much more significant move—which the EU’s legal service says would only need a qualified majority vote—would be to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. A majority of member states already support this. Others, like Italy, which once opposed it, have signaled a possible shift. Germany remains the only large country against it, arguing that banning settlement trade would be like Nazi discrimination against Jews. This argument is outrageous, suggesting a false equivalence between today’s illegal Israeli settlements and the Jewish people persecuted in 1930s Germany.
Fortunately, pressure is building. The EU’s high representative, Kaja Kallas, pushed by most member state governments, has formally asked the European Commission to propose a plan on this issue. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen might still try to delay or confuse things. But it’s clear to everyone that the EU’s trade with Israel’s illegal settlements is indefensible. Instead of fighting a losing battle and stubbornly refusing to uphold international law, Europe would do well to get back on the right side by embracing its own rules once again.
Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs based on the statement Even in this era of what Mark Carney calls global rupture dont lose hope there is still reason to believe in international law
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What exactly does Mark Carney mean by global rupture
It refers to a period of intense breakdown in global cooperation trust and stability Think of events like the COVID19 pandemic the war in Ukraine rising nationalism and climate changeall happening at once and shaking up the old world order
2 If the world is falling apart why should I still have hope in international law
Because international law isnt just a set of rules that get broken Its also a shared language and a set of standards Even when powerful countries break the rules they almost always feel the need to justify their actions using international law That need to justify proves the law still matters
3 Can you give a simple example of international law working today
Absolutely The global response to the COVID19 pandemic while messy was coordinated by the World Health Organization and rules on sharing virus data Also every international flight you take follows rules from the International Civil Aviation Organization keeping air travel safe and consistent across borders
4 Isnt international law just a suggestion Countries do whatever they want
Its a common myth International law is real law but it doesnt have a global police force Instead it works through consequences trade sanctions diplomatic isolation loss of reputation and rulings by courts like the International Court of Justice Breaking it has a real cost even if its not always immediate
Intermediate Advanced Questions
5 How does international law help during a rupture like a war or a trade war
It provides a benchmark When Russia invaded Ukraine the world didnt just say thats bad It pointed to the UN Charter which bans the use of force This legal framework allowed for immediate sanctions arms embargoes and war crimes investigations The law didnt stop the invasion but it defined the response and made the aggressor a global pariah
6 What about climate change Isnt that a huge failure of international law
Its a mixed result The Paris Agreement is a success in getting nearly every
