I | The Crisis of Sovereignty

Sovereignty—the cornerstone of modern international law—was once defined as the inviolable right of a state to control its territory and population.¹
But in the twenty-first century, sovereignty has been both weaponized and hollowed out.

From drone warfare to cross-border cyberattacks and covert military operations, the doctrine that once shielded nations from external interference now often serves as a pretext for impunity.
The Gaza conflict (2023–2025) exposes this contradiction in its sharpest form: Israel invokes sovereignty for security while violating the sovereignty of others, including Qatar and Lebanon, under the claim of counterterrorism.

II | The Doha Strike: A Legal and Political Breach

In 2025, Israeli airstrikes reportedly targeted Hamas political representatives on Qatari soil, killing several individuals during ceasefire mediation sessions.²
The strike—despite Qatar’s declared neutrality and diplomatic immunity guarantees—constituted a flagrant breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”³

Qatar, long positioned as a mediator under tacit U.S. oversight, condemned the attack as “reckless aggression.”
This incident sets a dangerous precedent: it erodes the immunity of negotiation venues and signals that even mediators are no longer safe from the calculus of “pre-emptive defense.”

Under customary international law, such an act qualifies as a use of force and potentially an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter, giving the victim state the right of self-defense.⁴
However, Qatar refrained—choosing diplomacy over escalation—illustrating how smaller states are coerced into restraint while major powers act without consequence.

III | Erosion of the Sovereignty Principle

The systematic targeting of civilians, aid convoys, and diplomatic premises across conflict zones shows that sovereignty has been fragmented into tiers of privilege:

  1. Immunity for powerful actors who invoke “self-defense”;

  2. Conditional sovereignty for weaker states whose security depends on alliances;

  3. Non-sovereignty for occupied or blockaded territories, treated as security zones rather than polities.

Gaza epitomizes the third category: sealed borders, restricted airspace, and external control over electricity, fuel, and population registry—all exercised by Israel in violation of Hague Regulations (1907) and Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) obligations as an occupying power.⁵
This model—sovereignty without autonomy—has reappeared in Yemen, Syria, and parts of Ukraine, where local governance exists under constant external override.

IV | Double Standards in the Application of Sovereignty

The United States, while condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of sovereignty, has defended Israel’s extraterritorial actions as legitimate defense.⁶
This selective invocation undermines the universality of the Westphalian principle that underpins the UN system.

In legal terms, selective sovereignty breeds instability: when international law applies only to adversaries, it loses its normative force.
The ICJ’s jurisprudence in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) remains instructive:

“The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign state to conduct its affairs without outside interference.”⁷
The Court condemned U.S. actions in Nicaragua—covert aid to armed groups and mining of harbors—as unlawful use of force.
Yet, forty years later, similar conduct by allies continues with impunity.

V | Regional Reverberations

1. Qatar and the Gulf States

Following the Doha strike, Gulf Cooperation Council states voiced rare unity in condemning the breach of sovereignty.
Qatar began lobbying for international legal protection of mediation venues, akin to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention (1961).⁸

2. Türkiye and the Eastern Mediterranean

Türkiye’s response intertwines law and strategy.
Ankara has consistently denounced the erosion of sovereignty norms in both Gaza and Syria, arguing that “the same logic used to justify airstrikes on Gaza is used to justify terrorist entrenchment along Türkiye’s borders.”⁹
Its position underscores how selective enforcement against Israel coexists with tolerance toward PKK/PYD entities in northern Syria, often armed or shielded by Western forces.

3. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon

Iran capitalizes on Western inconsistency to assert regional legitimacy, while Syria’s interim government—fractured and internationally unrecognized—illustrates the collapse of effective sovereignty.
Lebanon remains trapped between de facto autonomy and foreign interference, its airspace routinely violated.

VI | From Legal Borders to Functional Control

Contemporary sovereignty is increasingly measured by control, not recognition.
Satellite imagery from UNOSAT and OCHA confirms that Gaza’s administrative map is drawn not by law but by range: air superiority, surveillance reach, and logistical choke points.¹⁰
In this sense, “sovereignty” has devolved into a technology of domination—defined by who controls movement, communication, and survival.

Legal scholar Uğur Kara calls this “functional sovereignty without jurisdiction”—a condition where states are trapped between recognition and incapacity.
It is the modern form of colonial trusteeship, administered through security contracts rather than flags.

VII | Toward Reconstructing the Principle

To restore legitimacy to sovereignty, three steps are necessary:

  1. Reaffirm non-intervention as a universal norm—no state, however powerful, may strike another under the pretext of pre-emption or counterterrorism without explicit UN authorization.

  2. Protect mediation spaces through codified immunity under a new UN protocol—treating diplomatic territories as legally inviolable.

  3. Democratize enforcement by restricting Security Council vetoes in cases involving breaches of humanitarian law or sovereignty.

Without these reforms, the concept of sovereignty will continue its descent—from a legal right to a strategic fiction.

VIII | Conclusion — Sovereignty in a Lawless Century

The 1945 UN Charter promised a world where borders protected peoples, not power.
Eighty years later, borders have become conditional, negotiable, and—at times—irrelevant.
The violation of Qatar’s airspace and Gaza’s permanent blockade are not isolated events; they are symptoms of a global relapse into pre-Charter politics.

The survival of sovereignty now depends on restoring its moral symmetry:
either the law applies equally to all, or it protects no one.

Endnotes

  1. UN Charter, Article 2(1).

  2. Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement on the Israeli Airstrike in Doha, 18 May 2025.

  3. UN Charter, Article 2(4).

  4. UN Charter, Article 51; Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ 1986).

  5. Hague Regulations (1907), Articles 43–46; Geneva Convention IV (1949), Articles 27–34.

  6. U.S. Department of State, Press Briefing on the Middle East Situation, 3 April 2024.

  7. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (1986), para. 205.

  8. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).

  9. Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Statement on the Situation in Gaza and Northern Syria, 7 June 2024.

  10. UNOSAT & OCHA, Mapping Access and Destruction in Gaza, Situation Update, Sept 2025.