How Forgotten Treaties Shape Modern International Relations
International law has not been modified to cause the Panama Canal confrontation, the blockade on the Black Sea, or the dispute over what Ukraine is entitled to from the West. It was the documents signed long ago — provisions signed decades ago by people who couldn’t imagine today’s news.
Treaties do not simply come to an end or expire. They are archived in certain places until the authority that is in charge of them utilizes an already established section of the treaty instead of creating a new one.
Three events that will shape international relations in 2026 will be outlined in the paragraphs that follow.
This is not a story about how the old events recreate themselves in the new ones. This is because there is a pattern that has not been studied enough: the fact that powerful states do not simply break international deals but reinterpret them, stretch the unclear provisions of the treaties, and analyze whether it still makes sense to stick to the treaty.
The following sections describe three instances out of plenty of them that could be used to demonstrate how this mechanism works.
90Years since Montreux, 2026
31Years since the Budapest Memorandum
49Years since the Panama Canal Treaty
Case File 01 — The Straits Nobody Thought About Until a War Needed Them
Montreux Convention
In 1936, ten nations met in a town beside a Swiss lake, and Turkey was granted the power to determine which warships could navigate the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the only waterways to and from the Black Sea. For most of the 86 years since then, this has not been a point of primary interest in maritime law.
Only four days after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Turkey decided to enforce Article 19 of the convention, preventing the passage of military ships for both parties involved in the conflict. This altered the balance of military forces at the very beginning of hostilities, as most of the Russian Navy was confined to the Black Sea. It also meant that the naval forces of NATO countries were prevented from entering the Black Sea.
This case has largely been overlooked, precisely due to the ambiguity Turkey is taking advantage of. The convention contains no definition of what counts as a “war,” meaning it is entirely up to Ankara to invoke Article 19 — a decision it did not make back in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, but quickly made in 2022. By mid-2026, Turkey has formalized its stance, establishing its naval command in Istanbul primarily to assist the Black Sea littoral states in managing their own affairs.
The treaty, which did not contain any enforcement mechanism, emerged as a very important legal instrument of the war, since the only thing that mattered was the discretion of one nation.
The lesson is that geographical mastery, rather than military might, played a determining role in naval force projection into an active combat area. Turkey didn’t have to fire a bullet and yet managed to determine the opening act of the war.
Case File 02 — The Deal That Traded Nuclear Weapons for a Promise
Budapest Memorandum
SIGNED DEC 5, 1994 · BUDAPEST, HUNGARY · NOT A RATIFIED TREATY
In the wake of the 1991 Soviet Union collapse, Ukraine acquired approximately 1,900 nuclear warheads – the world’s third-largest nuclear stockpile at that time. Both Washington and Moscow wanted Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal to be disposed of. As part of the deal for Ukraine’s disarmament and joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S., UK, and Russia signed a memorandum, assuring Ukraine that its borders would be respected and free from any forceful activities against it. It also promised to take the issue up with the Security Council if any of the above commitments were violated.
But the catch lay in the fine print of international law – the said memorandum was never a ratified and binding legal treaty; it was more of a set of high-level political commitments. For years, this was an obscure point regarding the memorandum until it became crucial.
The two events that lawyers worldwide refer to as synonymous with the failure of the memorandum are Russia’s actions in Crimea in 2014 and its ensuing invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Moscow argues that the memorandum only affirms existing obligations under international law and does not impose any extra duties. This interpretation, of course, has been rejected by Kyiv, Washington, and London, but Russia has never been forced to prove this position in court, since there are no courts qualified to try this political issue.
Year
Event
Effect on the Memorandum
1994
Memorandum signed; Ukraine accedes to the NPT.
Ukraine surrenders its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances.
2014
Russia annexes Crimea
First major breach claimed by Kyiv; no binding enforcement follows.
2022
Full-scale invasion begins
Framework is treated as functionally void by all signatories except Russia.
2026
Postwar security guarantees debated
Cited as a cautionary case for why any new assurances to Ukraine must be legally binding.
The true legacy of the memo has nothing to do with legal matters — rather, it concerns reputation. Countries that are considering giving up their weapons to obtain a security guarantee are observing what happens to the country that previously attempted this deal.
Case File 03 — The Canal Treaty Nobody Expected to Be Renegotiated by Tweet
Torrijos–Carter (Panama Canal) Treaties
SIGNED 1977 · FULL HANDOVER COMPLETED 1999
The true legacy of the memo has nothing to do with legal matters — rather, it. In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos negotiated two treaties that were extraordinary for a superpower. Thus, America agreed to transfer control over the Panama Canal that it had owned and operated for the past sixty years. The first deal included a timetable for the expected transfer; the second agreement, known as the Neutrality Treaty, guaranteed free access for ships to the canal regardless of who would service it.
For a quarter of a century after the transfer of ownership in 1999, this situation remained unchanged. However, in the second term of his presidency, Donald Trump started saying that the arrangement was unfavorable. He kept saying that America had foolishly given its canal to Panama, which was now being managed by China. has to do with reputation. Countries that are considering giving up their weapons to obtain a security guarantee are observing what happens to the country that previously attempted this deal.
The dimension of China further intensified this issue. The concession of a port by a company from Hong Kong on both sides of the waterway has become a cause for discussion after the ruling of the Supreme Court of Panama, which declared the concession to be illegal. Beijing criticized this ruling and claimed that it was a capitulation to the United States, thus transforming the contract for ports into an economic battleground with the help of the neutrality clause of 1977.
The Pattern Underneath All These Three Forgotten Treaties
Line these cases up, and a mechanism emerges that has nothing to do with the specific regions or decades involved:
Why old treaties resurface
What it looks like
Case example
Legal ambiguity left unresolved
A clause was written vaguely because negotiators couldn’t agree, and nobody expected it to be tested.
Montreux Convention’s undefined “war” trigger
Power shift since signing
The country that benefited from the original bargain no longer holds the advantage it once did.
Panama Canal neutrality vs. U.S.–China rivalry
Non-binding language mistaken for binding
A promise was written as diplomacy, not law, and its limits only become visible once it is tested.
Budapest Memorandum’s “assurances” vs. “guarantees”
None of these treaties were secret. They were simply unimportant — right up until a signatory’s incentives changed enough to make the old paperwork worth reading again.
Why This Matters Beyond the Headlines
Most of today’s news coverage of world affairs tends to frame stories in terms of the individuals involved in the incident, such as a president’s complaint, a confrontation between naval forces, or a diplomatic incident. Nevertheless, the mechanistic and systematic essence of the process itself is missed: treaties are agreements between states that change over time, signed by people who will no longer be in charge at the time of implementation. The wording remains unchanged, while the political alignment changes.
This void, i.e., the difference between what a document says and what has been done regarding this document, explains what happens in politics nowadays. It allows one to perceive a chain of so-called “crises” as one single magnificent scheme. And when you see this scheme, you can start asking more interesting questions: which treaty is awaiting the moment of being relevant again?
Hammad Akbar is a political science student at the University of Balochistan and the founder of Brainification Blogs — a platform dedicated to the rigorous and accessible exploration of philosophy, world politics, and the shifting contours of global power.His writing draws from a commitment to intellectual honesty: situating ideas within their proper historical and theoretical contexts, interrogating assumptions that often go unexamined, and arriving at conclusions through reason rather than reflex. Whether engaging with the philosophy of the state, the dynamics of geopolitical rivalry, or the moral questions embedded in international affairs, Hammad approaches each subject as an invitation for genuine inquiry."Not just what to think about the world — but how, and why."
A contributor to academic journals and newspapers, he understands that credibility is earned not through assertion but through the quality of one's reasoning. His readers find in his work a rare combination: analytically precise arguments without being inaccessible, and perspectives that are firmly held without being closed.Hammad believes that in an era of noise and rapid-fire opinion, the most radical act is to slow down, think carefully, and write with clarity and care.
