Global rupture era challenges international law, but stronger powers not always prevail, analysis says

International law and power in modern conflicts

The era of 'global rupture', a term coined by Mark Carney, is often described as 'the law of the jungle', where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israel's onslaught on Gaza, and US and Israeli attacks on Iran and Lebanon seem to confirm this bleak view. However, a closer look reveals a different, brighter path.

Russia, once seen as a formidable military power, was expected to overwhelm Ukraine, a much smaller country backed by a divided, fearful West. Even after the war settled into a protracted stalemate, the prevailing belief was that Ukraine was doomed to lose. But the narrative has shifted: Ukraine stands tall.

In the Middle East, the US and Israel attacked Iran twice in blatant violation of international law. European leaders, initially evasive on legality, eventually acknowledged as much. Four months later, the US and Iran agreed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The MoU de facto recognizes Iranian control over the strait, unfreezes Iranian assets, and temporarily waives oil sanctions as nuclear talks resume. The MoU was the best deal Trump could secure, but not a good one for the US or Israel, and criticism in both countries is mounting. It shows that even the strongest have not prevailed.

Europe's role and initiatives

Europe, which has stood with Kyiv and international law while hypocritically flirting with abandonment in the Middle East, has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment. Two initiatives offer hope.

A coalition of about 40 countries, led by France and the UK, has assembled a taskforce to be deployed to the Strait of Hormuz to clear mines and secure the waterway. This signals Europe's willingness to play an active, constructive role. However, the operation will likely not proceed: the US is not interested, and Iran rejects the idea of European warships in the strait.

A more concrete and useful initiative has quietly taken shape. Norway, with strong political credentials in the Middle East and expertise in the law of the sea, has provided legal counsel to Iran, Oman, Pakistan, and Qatari mediators to ensure post-strait arrangements comply with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) principle of freedom of navigation. Although the US, Iran, and Israel are not parties to UNCLOS, both Washington and Tehran are interested in respecting its terms in the strait.

Israel and the EU

European credibility remains in shreds regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. European 'concern' about Israeli actions has not translated into meaningful policy. Israel remains completely unaccountable for its war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide in Gaza. European governments have shielded Israel from its international legal obligations.

But change may be on the horizon. EU sanctions on Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich require unanimity, which is unattainable. A more significant move would be banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, requiring only a qualified majority vote. A majority of member states already support this. Italy, once opposed, has signalled a possible shift. Germany remains the only large country in opposition, arguing the ban would be reminiscent of Nazi discrimination against Jews – an argument called obscene.

EU high representative Kaja Kallas, pushed by a majority of member states, has formally asked the European Commission to table a proposal. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen may still obfuscate. But the indefensibility of EU trade with Israeli settlements is clear.