Since a late February joint US‑Israel strike on Iran, which killed Iranian officials and more than 1,000 civilians, and a separate US special forces operation in early January that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and civilian deaths, many international law experts have judged both actions to be violations of international law. These interventions have prompted debate about consistency in how democratic governments assess and condemn breaches of legal norms.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democrats, has been criticized for failing to clearly denounce the US actions. After the Iran strike he acknowledged the dilemma that measures taken under international law often appear ineffective against regimes that pursue nuclear programs and repress their populations. He has also described the legal status of Maduro’s capture as complex, and before a White House visit immediately after the Iran strikes he said he would not lecture the US president. Opponents in Germany accused him of softening his language to maintain good relations with Washington.
On March 17 a group of legal scholars and academics published an open letter sharply criticizing the German government’s public statements. The letter argued that Berlin’s failure to unequivocally condemn the February 28 attack on Iran contributes to the erosion of the rules‑based international order in Europe and beyond.
Signatories warned that the conduct of great powers and a perceived US retreat from strict adherence to international law are damaging the international legal framework. An Oxford scholar who signed the letter said great‑power politics are doing serious harm to the rule of law, and a leading German international law scholar cautioned that unwritten norms can change if violations go unchallenged, potentially weakening the prohibition on the use of force.
Critics point to an apparent inconsistency in Merz’s rhetoric. He has been forthright in condemning Russian violations in Ukraine, yet he has spoken more cautiously about the US operations in Iran and Venezuela. Observers say this situational approach undermines the credibility of Germany’s commitment to international law.
Voices from the Global South have for years accused Western governments of double standards in applying international law, enforcing it when convenient and ignoring it when not. Some scholars here accept that states may make political judgments about whom to criticize, but they warn that inconsistent treatment damages credibility. They also note that accusations of double standards are sometimes exploited by other powers to deflect criticism, even when those powers do not consistently apply legal measures themselves.
Analysts flag a broader trend: as power shifts and major states show less willingness to enforce legal norms, weaker states become more reliant on rules, institutions and peaceful dispute resolution. Protecting those rules, these experts say, will require concerted political will from a broad set of countries.
Merz has stated that Germany will not participate in the US‑Israel war against Iran, but his public position on the legal dimensions of the interventions remains ambiguous. President Frank‑Walter Steinmeier has taken a more explicit line than the chancellor, describing the Iran strikes as a violation of international law and warning that they were politically damaging. Steinmeier urged clearer language from the government, arguing that foreign policy loses persuasiveness if violations of international law are not identified as such.
It is unusual for a German president to take a position that appears to contradict the chancellor on a major foreign policy issue, and Merz has not publicly responded to Steinmeier’s remarks. The leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group called on the president to show restraint and said legal assessments should await the federal government’s findings.
In January the German government announced it would review the legal implications of the US operation in Venezuela but indicated it would take its time; no public legal assessment has been released to date.
The debate highlights tensions within German politics and among legal and academic communities over how to balance alliance politics with consistent support for international law. The piece was originally published in German.