The current wars and conflicts in the Middle East, when they are assessed in terms of the function of the international law and the involved actor’s strategic positioning, demonstrate that the existing global system is not only going through a period of crisis, but also entered a process of profound structural transformation. In this process, the war that is executed particularly by the United States (U.S.) and Israel against Iran and Lebanon, painfully present now, how “selective” and “flexible” the interpretation of traditional legal norms like sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the use of force has become. At this point, the gap between legal legitimacy and the actual use of force has widened to such an extent that the international order that was rule-based had replaced its place to law of jungle in the clearest sense of the word. This normative collapse of the system had become concrete not only through violations on paper but also through the horrific range of physical destruction and human tragedy on the ground and shows the real depth of the crisis.
The thing we are witnessing today is systemic “subjugation” strategy that is aimed at totally crashing the opposing side’s infrastructure; drying up its economic resources as a whole and breaking its social resistance, going beyond the conventional military operations logic. This uncontrolled destruction is the clearest evidence that under international law, the principle of “proportionality” has been effectively put into a shelf and give its place to a period of widespread barbarism”. The war’s objectives being left uncertain around regime change and nuclear disarmament on the other hand creates a spiral of uncertainty that eliminates the boundaries of this physical destruction and threatens global economic stability.
Here in this context, the de facto dysfunction of international law is not only a process that can be solely explained by norm violations. On the opposite, this situation gains a deeper meaning with the systematic violation of norms and the international system’s failure to impose sanctions for these violations. In this context, the fundamental assumptions are started to be questioned regarding the binding nature of international law. States facing decreasing costs when they violate legal obligations are weakening the law’s deterrent capacity and make use of force a more attractive option. In this way, international law is transforming from a regulatory and constraining mechanism into an instrumental function which major powers utilize towards pursuing their interests. This situation presents that the power-centered system that is provisioned by Realist International Relations theory is re-emerging and that the fundamental assumptions of the Liberal Institutionalist approach are face to face with a serious challenge.
In this framework, the tendency which can be described as the “law of the strong”, is not a development that is unique to the Middle East, but a reflection of a wider transformation within the global system. The enforcement of norms in the international system that are differentiating by depending on actors’ power and their position in the system undermines the principle of the universality of law and reduces the system’s predictability. This situation particularly increases security risks for medium and weak states, and raises the level of uncertainty in the international system.
Another dimension of the transformation in question can be read through the lens of the European Union’s foreign policy capacity and its seek for strategic autonomy. The EU’s approach towards the crises in the Middle East clearly presents the inconsistency between its normative rhetoric and practical policy. While on one hand, the supremacy of international law and the protection of human rights are strongly emphasized and on the other hand, a comprehensive, consistent, and effective policy in response to developments on the ground cannot be formulated. This undermines the EU’s aim for being a global actor. Disagreements among member states not only blocks the formation of a common strategic culture but also lead the EU to appear as a fragmented and limited actor in decision-making processes.
The nature of the relationship the European Union has established with the United States constitutes one of the most fundamental and chronic sources of the strategic paralysis we face today. The historical depth of transatlantic ties had prisoned Europe’s security architecture in such a spiral of dependency that this situation can no longer be explained as a lack of military capacity solely, but rather as a distinct “loss of strategic will”. Europe’s inability to formulate original and independent policies in times of crises presents that the goal of “strategic autonomy” had largely remained at the level of discourse and has been seriously challenged against on-the-ground realities. The extent of this dependency is clearly presents itself in the hierarchy among allies and the crisis of dignity that accompanies it.
The treatment towards leaders like Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who are defending international law and the normative order with a uncompromising language, is a significant example of this situation. Sánchez’s criticism towards Israel’s operations in Gaza and Lebanon and call for a return to the rule of law were not only rejected by the United States that supposed to be their ally, but also become a topic of a process of disgracing. The breaking point in here is not only a simple discourse tension between Sánchez and Donald Trump. In a place where Trump hosted German Chancellor Friedrich Merz -which viewed as the locomotive of Europe- and his harsh discourse toward Sánchez who was seated at the same table, had presented the weakness of solidarity mechanisms in the European Union, since Germany had a cautious and silent stance on that matter.
This positioning of the Europe, makes the norm-based approach of Spain limited and ineffective. While on the one hand, there is the Madrid administration that emphasizes international law and normative principles; on the other hand, there are actors such as Berlin and Paris who act more cautiously while considering relations with the United States. This situation weakens the EU’s capacity of collective act in the realm of foreign policy and positions the Union closer to appear as an actor that is an observer in global crises that produces limited impact.
The discourse-practice contradiction that became concrete in the example of France points to the discussions regarding the European Union’s normative power beyond a simple inconsistency, to a structural tension within its value system. The stance which the French President Emmanuel Macron’s had during the crisis is one of the most significant examples of this situation. Even though Macron stated that the operations executed by the U.S. and Israel were not in applicable in international law, he stated these actions as “understandable”. This approach is reflecting an effort to a balance between criticism of the clear violation of international legal norms and geopolitical justifications.
The so-called seek for “middle ground” makes the value-based foreign policy claim of Europe questionable and widens the gap between normative discourse and political practice. Even though there was a strong emphasis on the principle of proportionality regarding the attacks against Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon, the preference for a more limited and cautious discourse in on-the-ground developments points to a shift in France’s classical foreign policy tradition. This situation presents that France and thus, the Europe is moving closer to the role that adapts to existing power balances, particularly the U.S.-centered security architecture, instead of acting as a norm-setting actor within the international system.
The balance that Macron has tried to create between international law and strategic flexibility is meeting with limited success in on-the-ground realities. The European Union’s current positioning presents the image of a structure that observes developments and adapts to them only to a limited extent, instead of acting as an effective actor. In this framework, one of the Union’s member states diplomatic stance not being able to protected enough presents that the discourse of strategic autonomy remains on the discourse level. So, the EU emerges in the global crises not as a decisive actor, but rather as a structure that follows the policies of major powers that has a limited capacity of influence.
Türkiye’s position in this multi-layered and complex geopolitical equation goes beyond of a solely regional actor, presents itself as one key elements of the system. Türkiye with its geographical location, is not only a transit point between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; but also a strategic center that is capable of shaping the interactions among these regions. The advantages in areas such as energy corridors, trade routes, security policies, and migration management, puts Türkiye into the center of the regional equation while also making it a significant actor in terms of global stability. Türkiye has qualitatively transformed its military capabilities with its developing defense industry and drone capacity. Localization initiatives and the varying of operational capabilities have not only helped the country to achieve an effective deterrence capacity against conventional threats but also against asymmetric and hybrid threats. This situation makes Türkiye’s role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) more critical while also reinforces its position as a decisive actor in the regional security architecture.
Türkiye’s foreign policy approach combines the delicate balance between pragmatism and normative discourse against current crises with a strategic realpolitik logic. While the emphasis on international law contributes to strengthening normative legitimacy, “balancing” steps aiming to reduce tensions on the ground presents Türkiye’s capacity as a mediator and stability provider. Its role in NATO’s security architecture and capacity to balance regional threats present that Turkey is not only an ally of the West, but also an essential security element. In terms of the European Union’s much-discussed goal of “strategic autonomy”, Türkiye is not only a partner but it is also an important “force multiplier” in this framework. The European Union’s ability to strengthen its claim to be a global actor depends on redefining its relations with Türkiye on a more rational and inclusive ground. In order to understand geopolitical realities beyond relying on theoretical frameworks, the opportunities provided by the geography and military capacity clearly presents this review. The future of the international system will be determined by the rational partnerships and strategic cooperation with Türkiye.
The conflicts in the Middle East presents the significant increase in the tension between international law and power politics and indicating that the normative order had entered a severe process of erosion. These developments not only deepen regional instability but also weakens the predictability of the international system. The European Union is being dragged to the role of an actor capable of exerting only limited influence in global crises because of its misalignment between normative discourse and practical policies, and coordination issues among member states. In contrast to this, Türkiye is emerging as a more effective and balancing actor at both regional and global levels with to its geostrategic position, growing military capabilities, and multidimensional approach in foreign policy.
A multi-layered approach should be adopted in order to overcome the emerging challenges. Firstly, it is important to re-strengthen the international legal norms and develop binding mechanisms that ensures a more effective application of principles like the use of force, sovereignty, and proportionality. In this regard, reforming the United Nations’ decision-making processes, limiting the veto mechanism or establishing a creating a more inclusive structure may contribute to the reestablishment of the normative order. For the European Union’s, it is necessary to increase the institutional capacity of the common foreign and security policy, and establish a stronger coordination mechanism to reduce differentiation of opinions among member states. So, the EU may transform into an actor that is capable of presenting its claim of normative power not solely at the level of discourse but also in crisis management practices. For Türkiye, it is important to institutionalize its multidimensional foreign policy strategy and develop a comprehensive approach which integrates diplomatic, security, and economic tools to use its current position more effectively. Increasing its regional mediation capacity and taking on an active role in international platforms will reinforce Türkiye’s position as a balancing actor. Eventually, stability in the international system that lasts, is depending on achieving a sustainable balance between the balance of power and the normative order. This balance can only be achieved through an approach of multilateral cooperation where major powers, regional actors, and international institutions taking on responsibility.
