Trump's War on Iran Destabilises Global Order; Is International Law Paralysed?

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia — US President Donald Trump’s decision to wage war against Iran has sparked broad debate amongst international law experts. Many are now questioning whether the global order built after World War II can genuinely constrain the power of the world’s strongest nation.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has been assessed as wielding presidential power extensively, whilst the system of checks and balances in the US Constitution appears to have failed to limit his actions.

During his second term as president, Trump has ordered two attacks against sovereign nations without provocation: Venezuela and Iran. He has also threatened to annex Greenland, strained traditional relationships with European allies, weakened the role of the United Nations, and destabilised global trade through sweeping tariff policies.

According to Al Jazeera, the restrictions previously established through the UN system and international law appear to have been superseded by Trump’s openly acknowledged power approach. Last January, he told journalists that his power was ultimately limited only by “his own morality”.

International Law “Powerless”

Thus far, according to analysts, international law has failed to provide real constraints on Trump’s policies.

Attacks against Venezuela and Iran are said to violate international law and the UN Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of military force contained in Article 2(4).

The debate about how international law has historically often served Western interests, particularly those of the US, is not new. However, experts say that during Trump’s presidency, even the symbolic limitations of such legal systems appear to be disregarded.

Trump himself openly dismisses international law. In January, he stated that he would determine when and to what extent international law applies to the US.

Michael Becker, professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, said that historically international law has often served Washington’s interests.

“In many ways, international law has historically served US interests, and self-interest must continue to generate US support for a rules-based order organised around core principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” Becker told Al Jazeera.

He added that respecting international law often requires a long-term perspective that does not always align with short-term political agendas.

“However, finding value in international law often requires a long-term view that does not easily align with short-term political agendas,” he said.

According to Becker, current geopolitical conditions leave international law with almost no ability to constrain Washington’s actions under Trump. He assessed that the situation is unlikely to change in the near term, particularly because other nations have failed to unite against Washington’s policies.

Complicated Relations with the UN

The UN’s role is also considered insufficiently strong to withstand Trump’s policies.

Since its establishment, the UN has aimed to promote dialogue and prevent conflicts between nations. However, Trump’s relationship with the institution has often been complicated.

On one hand, he attempts to build alternative exclusive structures such as the Board of Peace, whilst sidelining UN aid efforts in Gaza. On the other hand, Trump sometimes still seeks UN legitimacy for certain policies.

One example was when he requested in August that the UN establish a Support Office in Haiti to help limit migration to the United States.

Nevertheless, according to Richard Gowan, former UN Crisis Group Director from 2019 to 2025, Trump clearly has no intention of following the UN Charter.

“Although other UN members regularly see the US violating international law, they often refrain from criticising Washington too harshly in forums such as the Security Council because they fear negative reactions from Trump,” Gowan said.

He assessed that this situation makes Trump increasingly aware that he can ignore the UN without serious consequences.

“So Trump learns that he can avoid the UN whenever he wants and get away with it, whilst occasionally using it for instrumental purposes,” he said.

Resistance from “Middle-Power” Nations

Several nations known as “middle powers” such as Canada, the UK, and France succeeded in resisting Trump’s attempt to unilaterally annex Greenland.

However, these European nations failed to condemn the war launched by Washington against Venezuela and Iran, which analysts say demonstrates double standards in Middle Eastern conflicts and those in the Global South.

Some analysts also estimate that Middle Eastern nations’ withdrawal of investments from the US, affected by Iranian retaliation strikes, could accelerate the war’s end.

H A Hellyer, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, said middle-power nations can only slow, but not veto, Washington’s policies.

According to Hellyer, collective action by European and Middle Eastern nations can increase political costs and force tactical adjustments, but the power imbalance remains substantial.

“Structural imbalances persist; the US maintains military, financial, and institutional superiority that are decisive,” he said.

He also explained that many small nations choose to act cautiously in line with Washington or seek protection through regional alliances.

Meanwhile, China and Russia have so far criticised violations of international law without directly escalating. Nations such as India and other BRICS bloc members have also largely chosen to remain silent.

Domestic Constraints

Within the US, the Supreme Court briefly limited Trump’s use of tariffs.