Since the United States and Israel launched a joint strike on Iran in late February, their forces have killed government officials and more than 1,000 civilians. In early January, US special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; that operation also resulted in civilian deaths.
Most international law experts view both the US‑Israel campaign against Iran and the US intervention in Venezuela as breaches of international law.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, leader of the conservative Christian Democrats, has not clearly condemned the US actions. After the initial attack on Iran he said: “We recognize the dilemma that measures and steps taken in accordance with international law against a regime that is developing nuclear weapons and brutally oppressing its own people clearly have no effect.” Earlier he described the legal status of Maduro’s capture as “complex.” Before visiting the White House immediately after the first strikes on Iran, Merz also said he did not intend to “lecture” Donald Trump on international law. Critics in Germany accused him of seeking favor with the US president.
A group of legal scholars and academics published an open letter on March 17 criticizing the German government’s statements and warning of wider consequences. “The German federal government’s statements to date do not clearly condemn this action [the attack launched by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026], which violates international law. This contributes to the further erosion of the rules‑based and institutional order in Europe and in the world,” the letter stated.
Janina Dill of the University of Oxford, a signatory, told DW that great‑power politics and a US turning away from international law are doing “incredible harm to the rule of law.” Anne Peters, director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, warned that unwritten international norms can change if violations go unchallenged. “There is a danger that the prohibition of the use of force will be undermined and the rules will change if violations are not criticized,” she said.
Critics note a contrast in Merz’s rhetoric: he has downplayed the relevance of international law in the Venezuela and Iran cases, yet has strongly and unequivocally condemned Russia’s violations in Ukraine. “In reality, the chancellor arguably has a situational relationship with international law,” Henning Hoff of the German Council on Foreign Relations told DW.
Observers from the Global South have long accused Western governments of double standards on international law, applying it when convenient and ignoring it when not. Peters counters that while states are free to make political judgments about whom to criticize, inconsistent treatment undermines credibility. She also cautioned that accusations of Western double standards are sometimes used opportunistically by countries such as China and Russia to deflect criticism, even though those states do not insist on uniform application of measures like sanctions.
Dill highlighted a broader trend: a growing disconnect between actual military and economic power and the willingness to uphold international law. “The great powers are, so to speak, becoming less and less interested in enforcing the law,” she said. She added that weaker states need norms, institutions and peaceful dispute‑resolution mechanisms more than ever, and that protecting those rules requires collective political will from other countries.
While Merz has stated that Germany will not take part in the US‑Israel war against Iran, his position on the legal issues remains ambiguous. German President Frank‑Walter Steinmeier has been more explicit and indirectly criticized the chancellor. Speaking at the Foreign Office, Steinmeier called the Iran strikes a violation of international law and “a politically fatal error.” He urged the government to speak plainly: “Our foreign policy does not become more persuasive when we do not designate a violation of international law as such,” he said, adding that international law is essential for states that are not great powers.
It is unusual for a German president to contradict a chancellor on major foreign‑policy matters. Merz has not publicly responded to Steinmeier’s remarks. Jens Spahn, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, urged the president to show restraint, saying assessments of legal conformity are the federal government’s responsibility and should be awaited.
In January the German government said it would review the legal implications of the US operation in Venezuela but would “take its time.” No public assessment has been released to date.
This article was originally written in German.