With brutal wars erupting in Ukraine and Gaza, and attacks escalating between Iran and Israel, upholding international law is more necessary than ever. Many argue that Western support for Ukraine, which is often emphasized in terms of respect for international law, is undermined by the country's lackluster support for Gaza. This sparked a larger foreign policy debate over alleged Western double standards. The argument is that Western countries are concerned about violations of international law only when it serves their own interests.
Speaking on behalf of my home country of Norway, I can say that this accusation is wide of the mark. We have made clear that a true commitment to international law requires condemning Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, as well as condemning Israel's violations of international law in Gaza.
Avoiding double standards in foreign policy is a long-standing priority for Norway. As a general rule, successive Norwegian governments have upheld international law, no matter who violates it. Whether it is the ongoing war in Gaza, the conflicts on the African continent, Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, the UK's violation of international law in the Chagos Islands, or Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, Norway has a principled and It's clear. We did not hesitate to condemn these violations as fact, regardless of who committed them.
Is this the right approach? Some are skeptical. It is argued that countries should be careful not to criticize allies and partners when they violate international law. The argument is that the world is full of danger and that all countries, perhaps especially small ones like Norway, should be careful not to alienate allies and partners, even when acting contrary to international law. That's what it is.
However, this is the wrong approach. True security ultimately depends on a peaceful international community capable of solving global challenges. To this end, we must strive to ensure that international law is respected. Unless all countries comply with international law, this system will eventually collapse. It always leads to less safety and more uncertainty for everyone.
One hundred years ago, the eminent international lawyer and Prime Minister of Norway, Francis Hegelup, said that the principle of sovereign equality of nations was the Magna Carta of the world's nations. Even today, any move away from anything other than an unwavering commitment to international law would be disastrous for the international community. It is the very bulwark against what the International Court of Justice, in its first post-World War II judgment, called “the manifestation of a policy of force”, a situation where force is right.
Our consistent defense of international law, including in our relations with Western allies, could be misinterpreted as an acceptance of the narrative promoted by Russia and China that the West is hypocritical. I wonder if there is? Only if you are intentionally trying to mislead. It is true that Western countries also violate international law. The invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain in 2003 is one example. In the face of such an armed policy, countries like Norway must have the courage to stand by their convictions, just as we did 20 years ago. Only then can we gain real credibility and criticize states that truly and systematically base their foreign policies on double standards.
Only then can we credibly puncture Russia's narrative as a valiant defender of international law on behalf of the Global South. Russia's consternation at the killing of civilians by shelling in Gaza seems to know no bounds, but at the same time Russia is also bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine. As our Western allies are beginning to understand, this cynical double standard can only be effectively countered with principle. Norway's consistent stance on both Ukraine and Gaza allows us to point out such contradictions in a way that really sticks. The same applies to the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and Iran's retaliatory attacks on Israel. Although not all countries wanted to do so, having criticized Israel in the first event, Norway benefits from consistency and credibility and can criticize Iran in the second event.
Some argue that it is unrealistic to always be equally concerned about all violations of international law. However, Norway's consistent efforts to counter conflicts and crises does not prevent it from conducting its foreign policy based on pragmatic priorities. It makes intuitive sense that a war in a neighboring country would attract more attention than if it were occurring far away on another continent. For Norway, it is no surprise that Russia, with which it shares a long border, is attempting to annex Ukrainian territory through the use of illegal force. Wars in our immediate area inevitably have significant implications for security policy, potentially more so than in conflicts far away.
Therefore, Norway cannot be accused of double standards for providing supplies to the struggle to defend Ukraine or for providing historically large-scale aid to Ukraine. However, care must be taken not to give the impression that Russia is being evaluated according to special rules. Therefore, when criticizing Russia, we, like other states, have emphasized its violations of the United Nations Charter and other widely accepted rules of international law.
Similarly, Norway has not avoided criticism of Israel's policy of annexing occupied Palestinian territory. Norway made this clear in a February 2024 submission to the International Court of Justice in the ongoing advisory opinion process regarding Israel's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. In our oral submissions to the court, we were clear that Israel's actions in Gaza amounted to an indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force. We are currently working to ensure that Palestine is granted full membership in the United Nations.
What is important for Norway, and which underpins our foreign policy in general, is to insist that similar cases be treated similarly and that all countries follow the same rules.
This is a position that should be an inspiration to all states. All states are committed to upholding universally agreed rules regarding the use of force, free and fair trade, human rights, and the use of the ocean and its resources. Our common future depends on respect for international law. To do this, countries in the Global North and South need to be able to view international law as a fair set of rules. This means that the rules must be applied consistently. All states must resist the temptation to violate the tenets of the international legal order based on short-term national interests.
If there is a common thread in the works of Norway's leading playwright and poet, Henrik Ibsen, it is a strong emphasis on the double standards of polite society. Ibsen's arguments may have at times irritated those who felt condemned. Still, it was the right position. Norway's position is clear. Our most important contribution to a peaceful and just world order, and to our own national security, is to avoid double standards in foreign policy and to strive to enforce double standards in other countries.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
