German Chancellor Merz Faces Mounting Criticism Over "Selective" Approach to International Law

BERLIN, Germany – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is currently under significant scrutiny for recent statements suggesting a pragmatic, and to some critics, "selective" approach to international law, particularly concerning escalating conflicts in the Middle East. His remarks have sparked a heated debate about Germany's traditional foreign policy tenets, drawing concern from human rights organizations, international legal scholars, and even some domestic political figures who warn against undermining the very principles Europe often champions on the global stage.

A Shifting Stance on Global Order

Chancellor Merz has not shied away from offering a stark assessment of the current geopolitical landscape. At a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) event in Heddesheim, Germany, he cautioned that the United States, a crucial ally, is increasingly moving away from a foreign policy grounded in international law and instead prioritizing power and national interests, especially under the influence of former President Donald Trump's "America First" orientation. He urged Europe to pursue greater strategic independence in response to this perceived shift.

Further cementing this perspective, Merz declared at the Munich Security Conference that the rules-based international order, which has underpinned global stability for decades, "no longer exists in its original form." Citing factors such as Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine, China's growing assertiveness, and challenges to American leadership, the Chancellor articulated a view that the foundational framework of international governance is in significant disrepair. This assessment signals a potentially profound recalibration of German foreign policy, moving away from an unreserved adherence to multilateralism towards a more power-centric realism.

The Iran Controversy and the Primacy of Power

The most pointed criticisms of Merz's stance have emerged in the context of recent US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran. In a striking departure from Germany's long-standing diplomatic emphasis on legal legitimacy, Merz asserted that "International law classifications will have little effect on this – especially if they remain largely without consequence". He explicitly stated that categorizing these events under international law would be "inconsequential". This position, articulated at a press conference, suggested that Berlin's response would derive from "sober conclusions" rather than being constrained by abstract legal arguments.

This statement marks a notable pivot for a country that has historically framed its international role around multilateralism and the robust application of legal norms. Merz's formulation implies a "harder-edged calculus," where geopolitical realities and power dynamics might increasingly supersede formal legal doctrine in shaping foreign policy decisions. On the eve of a trip to Washington, where he was scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump, Merz aligned Berlin's objectives squarely with those of the United States and Israel, emphasizing a shared interest in seeing "an end to this regime's terror and its dangerous nuclear and ballistic armament" in Iran.

Domestic and International Repercussions

Merz's comments have not gone unchallenged. Human Rights Watch, among other international observers, noted a "lukewarm defense of international law" by some European leaders, including Merz, lamenting what they perceive as a "selective application" and "double standards" in condemning violations. Critics highlighted the conspicuous absence of direct calls for the United States or Israel to respect international laws concerning the conduct of war, especially when compared to swift condemnations directed at Iran. This perceived inconsistency, they argue, risks undermining the credibility of international law itself.

Domestically, the Chancellor's stance provoked a rare public divergence within the German government. Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier openly contradicted Merz, declaring that the war in Iran is "illegal under international law," an assertion that fueled internal debate and drew praise from unexpected quarters, including the Iranian regime. Jens Spahn, a prominent figure within Merz's own CDU/CSU parliamentary group, countered by emphasizing that the ultimate legal review rests with the federal government and that officials should respect this process. The juxtaposition of these statements underscored a visible tension between different interpretations of Germany's international obligations and strategic interests.

Realism Versus Idealism: Merz's Rationale

Chancellor Merz has offered a clear rationale for his seemingly pragmatic approach. He argues that Europe's long-standing reliance on condemnations and sanctions against Iran has yielded few tangible results. In his view, legal norms become ineffective when compliance is optional and enforcement is selective. This perspective reflects a "realist" school of thought in international relations, positing that legal instruments alone, without credible enforcement mechanisms, are insufficient to compel state behavior.

Merz's argument suggests that Europe cannot solely depend on appeals to legality when the global order appears to permit unilateral actions by powerful states. He believes that if international law is consistently violated without consequence, its authority erodes, breeding cynicism among allies and adversaries alike. For Merz, Europe has perhaps been overly idealistic, and a more robust, interests-driven foreign policy is required to assert its influence effectively on the world stage. He has stated that Germany will not allow itself to be deterred or distracted from supporting Ukraine due to the conflict in the Middle East, while also warning of an "endless war" in Iran that would not serve German interests.

Navigating a Fractured World

Chancellor Merz's recent pronouncements represent a significant moment for German foreign policy and for the broader European commitment to a rules-based international order. His call for a more pragmatic, power-aware approach to global affairs, while acknowledging the diminished efficacy of international law in certain contexts, pits a realist perspective against the foundational idealism that has often defined Germany's post-war identity.

The debate surrounding Merz's stance highlights a critical tension: how can nations uphold the principles of international law when its enforcement appears inconsistent or strategically inconvenient? While some argue that his approach is a necessary adaptation to a fragmented and power-driven world, others fear it risks eroding the very moral authority and legal framework that smaller nations, and indeed Europe as a collective, rely upon for their security and influence. The long-term implications of this shift for Germany's role in the world, and for the credibility of international law itself, remain a subject of intense observation and debate.