At a time when the international system is experiencing one of its deepest crises since the end of the Cold War, the rules of international law and the principles of peace, security, and justice are being subjected to severe tests, not only due to the return of the logic of hard power and the overreach of the major powers, but also because of the rush of some regional powers into military adventures and proxy conflicts that undermine what remains of the rules-based international order.
In this critical context, middle powers, or what have come to be known as medium powers, emerge as indispensable actors in the attempt to mitigate the erosion of the international system, not through military balancing with the major powers, which is beyond their capabilities, but rather through investing in multilateral diplomacy, collective security frameworks, and a practical – and not merely rhetorical – commitment to the principles of peaceful conflict resolution and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
The importance of middle powers stems not from their ability to impose new rules or re-engineer the international system, but from their capacity to play both restraining and restorative roles simultaneously. They are positioned to communicate with the major powers without becoming fully entangled in their sharp polarisations and to influence the regional environments to which they belong without succumbing to the logic of hegemony or military adventurism.
Therefore, their potential contribution to salvaging some of the rules of international law is not based on direct confrontation with the great powers, but rather on mitigating the effects of their unilateral policies, providing alternative paths for conflict management and upholding the idea that the international system, however imbalanced the distribution of power within it, cannot remain stable for long without a minimum set of shared rules.
These roles are becoming increasingly important amidst the declining effectiveness of traditional international institutions, foremost among them the UN Security Council, which has become hostage to divisions among the major powers and the use of the veto power as a tool to obstruct international justice, rather than to maintain peace and security.
In this context, the world’s middle powers do not have the luxury of waiting or simply declaring their adherence to international law. Instead, they find themselves compelled to seek new forms of multilateral action, whether within existing UN frameworks or through flexible regional and international arrangements capable of containing crises and preventing their escalation into full-scale wars or protracted conflicts.
However, the challenge is not limited to the overreach of the major powers, but also extends to the behaviour of some regional powers that have seen the erosion of the international order as an opportunity to expand their influence by force or to settle geopolitical scores through direct military intervention or support for non-state armed actors.
This pattern of behaviour, clearly witnessed in the Middle East over the past two decades, has contributed to weakening national states, fragmenting societies, perpetuating cycles of violence, and emptying the concepts of sovereignty and non-intervention of their practical meaning. Faced with this reality, the middle powers are called upon to play a dual role: curbing tendencies towards military adventurism and working to restore the national state as the only framework capable, in the long term, of achieving stability, security, and development.
Multilateral diplomacy plays a pivotal role in this effort, not only as a procedural tool for crisis management, but also as a political vision based on recognising the multiplicity and interconnectedness of interests, rejecting zero-sum solutions, and striving for gradual and sustainable compromises.
The world’s middle powers, by virtue of their position, resources, and limitations, understand that military options, even when seemingly attractive in the short term, often lead to unbearable strategic and moral costs. Therefore, their commitment to collective action and collective security frameworks reflects not political idealism, but a realistic assessment of power dynamics and the consequences of conflict.
Egypt’s role in the Middle East takes on particular importance in this context, not only because of its historical, demographic, and political weight, but also because of the nature of its approach to regional security. This approach rejects the logic of military adventurism and seeks to achieve stability by strengthening national institutions and pursuing political solutions to conflicts.
Egyptian diplomacy in recent years has focused on preventing state collapse, promoting comprehensive political settlements, and confronting the militarisation of conflicts and the rise of armed militias and non-state actors, which have become among the most dangerous manifestations of the disintegration of both the regional and international systems.
This approach stems not from abstract moral considerations, but from a profound understanding of the region’s experiences over the past decade. Attempts to overthrow states by force or reshape them through external military intervention have proven to be a recipe for prolonged chaos, a fertile ground for extremism and terrorism, and a constant threat to regional and international peace.
Therefore, Egypt’s insistence on the priority of political solutions and on respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states represents a practical contribution to defending some of the fundamental principles of international law, even in the face of the international system’s inability to enforce them comprehensively.
This role is also evident in Egypt’s commitment to working within collective frameworks, Arab, African, and international, and avoiding unilateral policies, even on issues that directly affect its national security. In its handling of crises such as those in Libya, Sudan, Gaza, and Syria, Egyptian diplomacy has sought to combine active engagement and mediation with military restraint, recognising that sustainable stability can only be achieved through regional and international consensus, however difficult or slow the process may be.
Furthermore, Egypt places the issue of limiting the roles of armed militias and non-state actors at the heart of its vision for regional security. These entities, often supported by regional or international powers, pose a direct challenge to the concept of the state and undermine any possibility of building a rules-based regional order. Therefore, addressing them requires not only security measures but also political approaches that reintegrate communities, restore the state’s monopoly on the use of force, and prevent external interference in internal conflicts.
Ultimately, the middle powers cannot save the international system or fully restore international law in the face of structural power imbalances. However, through multilateral diplomacy, collective security frameworks, and consistent action at the regional and international levels, they can slow down the erosion of the system, preserve spaces for rationality and justice, and prevent the global order from descending into open chaos governed solely by the law of the strongest.
In this context, Egypt’s role remains a model of how a state can utilise its position, capabilities, and limitations to serve stability, not by claiming the ability to change the world, but by insisting that the world, however flawed, still needs those who defend the principles of law, the state, and peaceful resolution, even within the limits of what is possible.
The writer is a political scientist and former MP. He is currently director of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 12 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: