By Mohamed Sabreen
At a time when international crises are multiplying and the rules-based international order is under unprecedented strain, the fundamental question is no longer who prevails on the battlefield, but whether international law is still capable of fulfilling its original mission: preventing war and safeguarding international peace.
The military confrontation between Israel and Iran, the subsequent U.S. intervention, and the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza have all exposed a widening gap between legal principles and geopolitical realities, raising profound questions about the effectiveness of the institutions established after the Second World War.
Against this backdrop, the recent interview given by Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Andreas Kravik, to Middle East Eye deserves particular attention. Rather than offering a narrow assessment of the Iran conflict, Kravik presents a broader vision of the future of the international legal order at a time when power politics increasingly threaten to overshadow the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Norway’s position rests on a simple but fundamental principle: the UN Charter must remain the ultimate legal framework governing the use of force. From Oslo’s perspective, neither strategic calculations nor preventive military doctrines can replace the legal standards established under international law. Consequently, Kravik argues that the U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran lacked a clear legal basis under the Charter and warns that legitimizing preventive war would establish a dangerous precedent. If states begin launching military operations based on anticipated future threats rather than actual armed attacks, the prohibition against the use of force—the cornerstone of the post-1945 international system—would gradually lose its authority.
Equally significant is Norway’s insistence that international law cannot be selective. Kravik stresses that legal principles derive their legitimacy only when applied consistently to all parties. Accordingly, Oslo also condemned Iran’s missile attacks against civilian areas in Israel, emphasizing that deliberate attacks on civilians constitute clear violations of international humanitarian law regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. In Norway’s view, the credibility of international law depends not on political alliances but on the equal application of legal norms to friends and adversaries alike.
These concerns extend far beyond Norway’s own diplomatic position. They increasingly reflect the conclusions reached by leading international research institutions examining the growing crisis of the global order. In its policy report Pursuing Peace on a Shoestring: Conflict Management in an Increasingly Complex World, published in October 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) warned that multilateral conflict management is entering one of its most difficult periods since the end of the Cold War. According to the report, fragmentation of international institutions, declining political investment in diplomacy and peacebuilding, and the growing reliance on military solutions are steadily weakening the international community’s ability to prevent and resolve conflicts. The report argues that the erosion of multilateral cooperation is not simply an institutional challenge; it directly threatens the foundations of international peace by making negotiated settlements increasingly difficult while normalizing the use of force.
A similar warning appears in Chatham House’s research paper Competing Visions of International Order, published on 27 March 2025. The study concludes that the liberal international order established after 1945 is facing its deepest structural crisis in decades. Intensifying rivalry among major powers, increasing unilateralism, and growing frustration across the Global South over what is widely perceived as selective application of international law have significantly eroded confidence in existing international institutions. The report warns that unless legal standards are applied equally to all states, international legitimacy will continue to decline, encouraging governments to rely increasingly on power politics rather than collective security mechanisms. Such a trajectory, it argues, risks producing a far more fragmented international system in which peaceful conflict resolution becomes progressively more difficult.
In many respects, Kravik’s message converges with these broader assessments. His argument is not simply that international law is under pressure, but that abandoning it would leave the world with only one governing principle: the law of power rather than the power of law.
Nor does the issue end with Iran. From Norway’s perspective, Gaza has become the ultimate test of the credibility of the international legal order and of the international community’s willingness to enforce the rules it has long defended. If Ukraine has become the benchmark for defending state sovereignty, Gaza has emerged as the benchmark for protecting civilians and ensuring accountability under international humanitarian law.
Kravik makes no attempt to conceal the gravity of the humanitarian disaster unfolding in the Palestinian enclave. He describes the images emerging from Gaza as deeply shocking and argues that the suffering of civilians has reached an unacceptable level. According to Norwegian assessments, the continued military operations, the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the severe restrictions on humanitarian assistance raise serious concerns regarding Israel’s compliance with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
Oslo has repeatedly stressed that humanitarian access cannot be treated as a political bargaining tool. Food, medicine, emergency relief, and medical personnel must reach civilians without delay or obstruction. Norway has also expressed strong opposition to Israeli statements suggesting long-term control over large parts of Gaza, warning that such proposals would carry profound legal and political consequences while further complicating prospects for a negotiated peace.
Yet Norway’s approach extends beyond criticism. It seeks to preserve a political pathway out of the conflict. The Norwegian government continues to support the negotiations taking place in Cairo aimed at implementing the post-war arrangements endorsed by the international community. These include completing the ceasefire process, facilitating humanitarian access, advancing reconstruction efforts, strengthening Palestinian governance institutions, addressing the future security architecture of Gaza, and creating conditions that could eventually revive a meaningful political process.
This reflects Norway’s long-standing belief that humanitarian relief alone cannot resolve the crisis. Durable peace requires functioning Palestinian institutions capable of governing effectively, rebuilding public services, and restoring confidence in the prospects for statehood. Oslo therefore continues to view institutional development as an essential pillar of long-term regional stability rather than merely an economic or administrative objective.
The same legal consistency is evident in Norway’s strong support for international judicial institutions. Kravik argues that the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court remain indispensable components of the international rules-based system. Attempts to undermine their independence—whether through political pressure, sanctions, or selective recognition of their jurisdiction—risk weakening one of the few remaining mechanisms capable of ensuring accountability for violations of international law.
For Norway, defending these institutions is not about supporting one side against another. It is about preserving the principle that no state should stand above the law. If international courts lose their authority whenever their decisions prove politically inconvenient, the entire system of international accountability risks gradual erosion. In that case, justice would increasingly depend on political influence rather than legal responsibility.
Ultimately, Oslo’s position reflects a broader strategic concern. The weakening of international law is not viewed simply as a legal problem but as a growing threat to global stability itself. Once legal norms lose their authority, military power inevitably becomes the principal language of international relations, making future conflicts more frequent, more difficult to contain, and far more costly for both regional and international security
The question posed by Andreas Kravik’s interview ultimately extends far beyond the wars in Iran or Gaza. It goes to the heart of the international system itself. Can international law still protect peace when major powers increasingly choose force over legal restraint?
There is no simple answer. International law alone cannot prevent wars, nor can courts stop armies. Yet abandoning the rules-based order would leave the world with no common standard except the balance of power. That is precisely why the current moment matters. The credibility of international law will not be measured by the principles states proclaim, but by their willingness to apply those principles consistently—to allies and adversaries alike.
If law is applied selectively, it ceases to be law and becomes an instrument of politics. But if the international community succeeds in restoring equal accountability and respect for the UN Charter, international law may still remain humanity’s strongest defense against an increasingly unstable world. The choice is no longer between law and perfect justice; it is between law and the dangerous normalization of permanent conflict.
Author: Mohamed Sabreen is Managing Editor of Al-Ahram (Egypt).He is a senior journalist and analyst specializing in international affairs, Middle Eastern geopolitics, Asian Affairs,environmental issues, and sustainable development. He serves as a Senior Expert at the United World Research Center.
He is a regular contributing columnist to a range of leading international publications, including Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt), Al-Masry Al-Youm (Egypt), The Korea Times (South Korea), New Straits Times (Malaysia), Xinhua News Agency (China), China Daily (China), China Today (China), Al-Sabah (Iraq), Ad-Dustour (Jordan), and An-Nahar (Kuwait).
