Europe Between War and Law: Sovereignty Put to the Test

The European Union finds itself suffering the effects of yet another war that is illegal under international law, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The use of force to attack other states and occupy their territories is banned by the United Nations Charter, signed by nearly all states, and is rightly considered a cornerstone of contemporary international law.

Europe caught between principles and geopolitical reality

In this geopolitical context, where two superpowers—permanent members with a veto in the United Nations Security Council, tasked with maintaining international peace and security—blatantly violate the principles of the Charter, the European Union finds itself on a collision course. Not only because, under the Treaty on European Union, the Union’s action on the international stage aims to promote respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law throughout the world, but also because of the harmful effects that ongoing wars have on the security and economies of member states. 

The inherent limitation: a fragmented foreign policy

In terms of relations with the rest of the world, the Union is a giant with feet of clay. While member states have ceded sovereignty over trade policy with third countries to the Union, which acts autonomously, foreign and security policy remains essentially in the hands of the member states, which, by insisting on unanimity in decision-making, have effectively made the formation of a common foreign policy within the Union nearly impossible.

Until now, with rare exceptions, the states have formed alliances and shaped their foreign policy independently, following the political guidelines of their respective governments. The initial reaction to the war in Iran, however, was unified. Countries realized that acting in disarray would not only fail to yield any national advantage but would also jeopardize Europe’s security. 

A common position (marking the distance from the United States)

At the last European Council meeting on March 16, 2026, a common position was adopted opposing the attack on Iran, in which respect for international law, the United Nations Charter, and humanitarian law by all parties involved is consistently reaffirmed. A common position was found on this point by countries like Spain—which, from the outset of hostilities, took a clear stance that the war is illegal— as well as countries closer to the United States, such as Poland, and opportunistic states governed by hard-right parties. The latter did not take independent positions so as not to displease their American sponsor, but they are also aware that, isolated, they would be unable to protect their populations from the devastating economic effects this war is having on the rest of the world and on Europe in particular.

The conclusions are not limited to mere declarations of principle, but set a number of commitments that countries collectively undertake. First, European states have agreed that actions to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will take place only in the event of a suspension or cessation of hostilities. This choice in European foreign and security policy is highly significant given that Trump has urged direct intervention by European states during the conflict, invoking compliance with commitments made within NATO. Regardless of the correct interpretation of the North Atlantic Treaty, a European political stance is beginning to emerge that stands in stark contrast to that of the now former ally. 

Migration, security, and European contradictions

Second, member states have entrusted the Commission—and thus the Union—with addressing energy security and energy prices, supply chains, and migration, and with proposing coordination measures regarding the potential impact on internal security.

Member states are united in their fear of a new migration crisis similar to that of 2015–2016, when, according to data quoted in a recent Financial Times interview with Migration Commissioner Bruner, 2 million asylum applications were filed. In the same interview, the commissioner reports that the European Union, through the temporary protection mechanism, has welcomed 4.3 million Ukrainians fleeing the war unleashed by Russia.

Unfortunately, the conclusions reveal a security-oriented approach that the Union is inclined to adopt to collectively repel a potential wave of Iranian refugees. This approach is reflected in recent European migration policies, even though the reported figures demonstrate its fallacy. Accepting Ukrainian refugees, by applying a European regulation created precisely to govern in an orderly manner the massive migration flows caused by internal and international wars, was not perceived as a danger. The absence of propaganda from hard-right governments and parties has allowed the European Union and its member states to remain faithful to the principles and rules that underpin the European democratic system, as enshrined in national constitutions and the Union’s legal framework.

The same national legal systems, under greater pressure from asylum requests, would have an interest in resorting to temporary protection, which allows for the distribution of asylum seekers throughout the European Union. Denmark has understood this, and understandably supports the security-oriented approach considering its distance from the Union’s external borders. That Italy supports it is much harder to understand.