US President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran has left many international law experts wondering whether the world order established after World War II is really working.
In his second presidential term, Trump appears to be wielding total unfettered power, and the system of checks and balances enshrined in the U.S. Constitution appears to be failing to limit his power.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Since Trump was sworn in in January 2025, he has ordered two unprovoked attacks against independent states, Venezuela and Iran; threatened to annex Greenland; tense traditional alliances with Europe; undermined the United Nations; and shook international trade with its extensive tariffs.
Previous limitations imposed by the UN system and international law appear supplanted by what Trump told reporters in January was a vision of power limited only by his “own morality.”
So what controls are there on Trump? Is he really free to attack states, set tariffs at will and, as leader of the most powerful state in the world, essentially dictate global policy? And if so, why do so many observers now say that his war against Iran is faltering?
Has international law put any checks on Trump?
Not until now.
According to analysts, both its attacks against Venezuela and Iran clearly violated international law and the UN Charter., mainly the prohibition of the use of force under article 2(4).
Debates about international law, how it has been oriented over decades to shore up the interests of the West and the United States specifically, are not new. Yet, experts said, Trump’s presidency has seen even the theoretical constraints of international law trampled.
Trump himself has set aside international law, saying in January that it would be up to him to decide when and to what extent international law applies to the United States and its actions.
“In many respects, international law has historically served US interests, and self-interest should continue to drive US support for a rules-based order organized around the basic principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin who previously worked at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, told Al Jazeera, “but finding value in international law often requires taking a long-term perspective that does not easily adapt to agendas. short-term policies.
“In the current geopolitical climate, the ability of international law to impose a meaningful constraint on American action under Donald Trump has proven negligible,” Becker added. “That seems unlikely to change, especially given the failure of other states to form a united front against Trump’s gangsterism.”
What about the UN?
Not so much.
Since its founding, the role of the UN has been to promote dialogue rather than conflict and provide a global response to international challenges. But Trump’s relationship with the agency, like many of the president’s associations, has rarely been so simple. For one thing, while he appears to be trying to supplant the body with his all-member Peace Board, as well as sidelining UN relief efforts in Gaza, he has at times sought UN legitimacy for several of his projects, such as his calls in August for the UN to establish a Support Office in Haiti, to help limit migration to the United States.
However, while UN support may be helpful, it is clear that Trump has no intention of respecting its charter, said Richard Gowan, Crisis Group’s UN director from 2019 to 2025.
“While other UN members see the United States regularly violating international law, they often refrain from being too critical of Washington in forums like the Security Council because they fear retaliation from Trump,” Gowan said. “So Trump is learning that he can circumvent the UN whenever he wants and get his way, although he occasionally uses it for instrumental purposes.”
What about other powers?
Up to a point.
Many countries known as “middle powers,” such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France and other Western and European states, have so far been successful in countering Trump’s efforts to unilaterally annex Greenland. But European powers have not condemned Trump’s unprovoked war against Venezuela and Iran, exposing his double standards in conflicts in the Middle East and Global South.
Many analysts hope that a withdrawal of investments in the United States by the Gulf states, which are most affected by Iran’s retaliation to American and Israeli attacks, could also hasten the end of the war.
“Middle powers can create friction, but not a veto,” said HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London. “Collective action (European governments, Gulf States) can increase costs and achieve tactical adjustments. The structural imbalance persists: the United States retains decisive military, financial and institutional primacy.”
Smaller states often hedge their bets, follow Washington or look to regional alliances for protection, Hellyer added, going on to say that while pressure was strongest in Europe, where the United States is no longer seen as a reliable security guarantor, the idea of establishing an alternative remains an obstacle. “The logic of an alternative model is accepted; the ability to implement it quickly is not. A prolonged interregnum follows. The Gulf Arab states are in an analogous position,” he said.
Meanwhile, Trump and the United States are free to act as they want. “These are exposure management strategies, which will be pursued until structural dependence on the US security umbrella can be reduced,” he said.
So far, China and Russia have criticized violations of international law while avoiding clear escalation, and India and other members of the BRICS bloc have remained largely silent, suggesting a preference for strategic ambiguity over confronting Washington directly.
What about domestic restrictions?
Not precisely.
The US Supreme Court was able to block Trump’s use of tariffs to manage much of his foreign policy, rewarding his allies with lower tariffs and punishing his critics with punitive import duties.
But none of the other traditional barriers – like Congress; the Department of Justice, which has provided unwavering support to the president; and even the media – has contained the president’s ambitions. This is not entirely new. Past presidents have ordered wars without congressional approval. But under Trump, analysts suggested, it has been systematic.
Powerful American institutions have largely failed to hold the Trump administration accountable, said analysts such as Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University.
“His base of strong supporters is saying that they are willing to experience short-term increases in gasoline prices if it leads to a friendly government in Iran in the long term. His opponents have been his opponents in everything, so he just ignores them and threatens them,” Scheppele told Al Jazeera.
“Trump pays more attention to market performance than public opinion, so he started saying he was downplaying costs and saying the war with Iran is short-term to boost markets again.”
“What the United States lacks spectacularly is the leadership to oppose Trump. Congress is not doing its constitutional job to limit him. The Supreme Court is in his pocket because he packed the court in his first term. The lower court judges are heroic and have done an incredible job under serious pressure, but they do not welcome foreign policy questions, given the difficulty of anyone gaining ‘standing’… in the area of international affairs,” he said, referring to the requirement that parties in a lawsuit must demonstrate actual or future direct harm to themselves. themselves to take a case to court.
He noted that lower federal courts, while limited on foreign policy, have repeatedly checked executive overreach on immigration, sanctions designations and emergency powers, often under intense political pressure.
So why do so many people say Trump’s war is faltering?
In the eyes of many observers, Trump, without clear war objectives or a defined resolution, is in danger of losing control of a conflict that appears to be growing and reaching economic areas apparently unforeseen by his administration, so while traditional restrictions do not apply, market forces, such as gravity, always do.
Trump has repeatedly said the war would end soon even though none of his war goals were achieved.
Oil prices have soared due to its attacks on Iran, Tehran’s counterattacks and threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes.
The International Energy Agency’s decision on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels of oil from international reserves has failed to rein in prices. Iran has warned that oil could hit $200 a barrel as it continues its dominance over the waterway.
“Ultimately, the factors most likely to limit Donald Trump’s neo-imperialist impulses – or his willingness to pursue the political goals of those who have his ear – are the economic consequences of the disruption of global energy markets and a broader disenchantment among American voters with his globe-trotting militarism, his rampant self-dealing, and his callous disregard for the human costs of war,” Becker said.
