At a time of wars, broken alliances and deep distrust between major powers, it can be tempting to conclude that international law no longer matters. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the devastation in Gaza, attacks involving Iran and Lebanon, and the repeated failure of global institutions have all strengthened the belief that the world is returning to a system where military strength decides everything.
But that conclusion may be too simple. Recent events also show that even the strongest states do not always get the outcomes they want. Power still matters, but it does not guarantee victory, stability or legitimacy.
Ukraine is one example. Russia entered the war with a far larger military, a bigger population and the expectation that Ukraine would eventually be overwhelmed. Yet Ukraine has continued to resist, backed by European support and by its own national resilience. Russia’s actions have been widely condemned as violations of international law, but the war has also shown that breaking the rules does not automatically produce success.
The Middle East offers another complicated example. U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran and Lebanon have triggered intense legal and political debate. Critics argue that some of these actions violated international law, while supporters claim they were necessary for security. Either way, the result has not been a clean strategic victory for the stronger side.
TRENDING TODAY
Instead, Washington and Tehran have moved toward a temporary understanding over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy routes. The arrangement is reportedly connected to renewed negotiations over sanctions, oil flows and Iran’s nuclear program. That does not mean Iran has won, or that the United States has lost. But it does show that military pressure alone has not settled the crisis.
The same lesson can be seen in Lebanon. Renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah disrupted planned U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland and forced diplomats back into crisis management. A ceasefire may reduce immediate violence, but it remains fragile. The situation shows how difficult it is for even powerful states to control events once regional conflicts begin feeding into each other.
For Europe, this is an important moment. European governments often present themselves as defenders of international law, but their record has been uneven. Support for Ukraine has been strong and consistent, while the response to conflicts involving Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and Iran has often been more cautious and divided.
Still, there are signs that Europe may be trying to rebuild some credibility. One track involves maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz. Some European governments have discussed a possible multinational effort to help protect navigation and reduce the risk of further disruption. Any such operation would need to be grounded in international law and coordinated with regional states, especially Iran and Oman.
Another more concrete issue is trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The European Union has been under growing pressure to consider restrictions on imports from settlements, which many governments and legal experts view as incompatible with international law. Reports suggest that a number of EU member states support action, while others remain hesitant.
This debate matters because it tests whether Europe is willing to apply legal principles consistently. Condemning Russia while avoiding difficult decisions on other conflicts weakens the credibility of the international system. If rules are treated as optional depending on the ally involved, then the argument for international law becomes harder to defend.
None of this means international law is strong enough on its own to stop wars. It is not. But it still shapes diplomacy, trade, legitimacy and public pressure. It gives smaller states and civilian populations a language through which to challenge stronger powers. It also creates costs for governments that act outside accepted norms.
The world is not entering a peaceful era. But it is also not true that power alone decides everything. Ukraine’s resistance, the unresolved outcome of the Iran crisis, and Europe’s internal debate over settlement trade all point to the same conclusion: international law is damaged, but it is not dead.
Why It Matters
The future of international law will not be decided only in courts or at the United Nations. It will be decided by whether governments apply the rules consistently when doing so is politically difficult. If Europe and other democratic powers defend legal norms only when it is convenient, they risk weakening the very system they claim to protect.
What Comes Next
The next test will be whether diplomatic efforts around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz hold, whether the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire remains in place, and whether the EU moves forward with real action on settlement trade. These decisions will show whether international law can still influence policy in an era of military pressure and geopolitical competition.
