Saudi Arabia–Turkey–Pakistan Defense Pact: Is It a New “Islamic NATO”?
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 5 hours ago
- 20 min read
Introduction
On 7 August 2026, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, establishing a new trilateral collective-defense arrangement. The Saudi Arabia–Turkey–Pakistan defense pact provides that an armed attack against one of the three states will be treated as an attack against all. The agreement builds on the Saudi-Pakistani mutual-defense pact concluded in September 2025 and emerges amid intensified regional conflict, missile and drone attacks, insecurity around Gulf and Red Sea routes, and renewed doubts about the durability of established security guarantees in the Middle East (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026; Reuters, 2026).
The comparison with an “Islamic NATO” captures one conspicuous feature of the agreement but can obscure its legal character. The collective-defense formula resembles the principle expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, yet a mutual-defense commitment does not by itself create an organization comparable to NATO. Nor can three states enlarge through treaty the circumstances in which international law permits armed force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force, while Article 51 preserves the right of individual and collective self-defense when its legal requirements are satisfied (United Nations, 1945).
The identity of the parties gives the arrangement particular legal and strategic significance. Turkey remains a NATO member and is already bound by the North Atlantic Treaty. Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons but is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Saudi Arabia is an NPT party without nuclear weapons. Their new defense relationship consequently raises distinct questions concerning overlapping treaty commitments, collective self-defense, deterrence, and the legal significance of Pakistan’s nuclear capability. None is resolved simply by describing the pact as an alliance.
The public record remains incomplete. The official announcement confirms the collective-defense commitment, while current reporting describes the agreement as defensive, but the full treaty text and detailed military obligations have not been made public (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026; Reuters, 2026). It is not yet possible to determine whether military assistance is automatic, what forms of assistance each state must provide, how the agreement defines an armed attack, or what territorial, procedural, and institutional limits apply.
For now, the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement—also referred to in English-language discussion as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement—is better understood as a significant new trilateral defense arrangement than as an established equivalent of NATO. Its legal reach depends on the treaty obligations ultimately created among the three states, the UN Charter rules governing the use of force, Turkey’s continuing NATO commitments, and the international law relevant to nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. Its broader importance will depend on how those commitments are implemented and whether the pact develops into a more institutionalized regional security structure.
1. The Road to the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement did not create a strategic relationship among three previously unconnected states. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey entered the negotiations with substantial bilateral military ties already in place. What changed was the environment surrounding those relationships. By 2026, widening regional conflict, missile and drone attacks, insecurity around major shipping routes, and doubts about traditional security guarantees had increased the value of regional deterrence.
The trilateral pact is best understood as the convergence of three relationships rather than the sudden creation of a new bloc. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan already had a mutual-defense commitment. Turkey and Pakistan had developed extensive military cooperation, while Ankara and Riyadh had moved toward closer defense-industrial ties after an earlier period of political tension. The August 2026 agreement brought those relationships into a single framework.
1.1 Saudi-Pakistani Defense Relations and the 2025 Pact
Saudi-Pakistani security cooperation stretches back decades. Pakistan has trained Saudi military personnel, provided technical expertise, participated in joint exercises, and maintained defense personnel in the Kingdom under bilateral arrangements. Saudi Arabia, for its part, has supplied Pakistan with substantial economic and political support during periods of financial and diplomatic pressure. The relationship has consequently rested on complementary resources rather than a narrow military exchange.
Its legal character changed significantly on 17 September 2025, when Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement. The official joint statement declared that aggression against either country would be regarded as aggression against both and described the agreement as strengthening joint deterrence (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2025). That formulation went beyond routine training, procurement, or military cooperation. It introduced an express principle of mutual defense.
The distinction is important. States can cooperate militarily for decades without undertaking a general obligation to respond when the other is attacked. The 2025 agreement altered that relationship by linking the security of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan more explicitly.
The commitment remained relevant during the regional escalation of 2026. Pakistani officials continued to describe existing bilateral defense agreements with Saudi Arabia as operational, while Pakistan maintained military cooperation with the Kingdom during a period of heightened concern over attacks on Saudi territory and maritime security (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026; Reuters, 2026). The Makkah agreement was thus built on an active bilateral framework rather than replacing a dormant one.
1.2 Turkey, Regional War, and the Trilateral Negotiations
Turkey's participation changes both the strategic weight and the legal complexity of the arrangement. Ankara brings a large conventional military, operational experience in several regional theaters, an expanding defense industry, and an existing collective-defense commitment through NATO.
Turkey and Pakistan already had close military relations. Their armed forces conduct regular exercises, while defense cooperation has expanded into naval construction, aviation, electronic warfare, military training, and other areas of defense technology. Saudi-Turkish cooperation had also deepened, particularly through defense-industrial projects involving Turkish unmanned aircraft and related systems.
These bilateral ties made a trilateral agreement possible, but they do not fully explain its timing. Negotiations developed against a security environment transformed by the conflicts that followed 2023 and intensified further in 2026. Gulf states faced missile and drone threats, shipping routes in the Red Sea and surrounding waters became increasingly vulnerable, and regional confrontation involving Iran and armed groups aligned with Tehran placed additional pressure on existing security arrangements.
Saudi Arabia had particular reason to diversify. Its economic strategy depends heavily on infrastructure, energy exports, transport routes, and domestic stability. Threats to ports, airports, oil facilities, and commercial shipping are consequently strategic as well as military concerns. Developing additional defense relationships does not necessarily indicate a rejection of the United States or other Western partners. It can instead reduce dependence on any single external guarantee.
Turkey and Pakistan approached the negotiations from different positions. Ankara has increasingly pursued strategic autonomy while remaining inside NATO, using regional partnerships to expand its diplomatic and military influence. Pakistan has sought to preserve important relations with Saudi Arabia while avoiding unnecessary involvement in wider Middle Eastern conflicts.
The emerging structure is consequently better described as hedging and layered deterrence than as the immediate formation of a rigid geopolitical bloc. Riyadh is diversifying its security partnerships, Ankara is supplementing rather than replacing NATO, and Islamabad is converting established bilateral relationships into greater regional influence. Those different interests help explain why the pact was politically possible, but they also complicate the question of what the agreement requires as a matter of international law.
2. The Agreement as an Instrument of International Law
The political importance of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement does not determine its legal status. States regularly adopt declarations, memoranda, political understandings, and treaties, and the name attached to an instrument is not conclusive. The relevant question is whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan intended to create obligations governed by international law and, if so, when those obligations became binding.
2.1 Treaty Status, Consent, and Entry Into Force
Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty, for purposes of the Convention, as a written international agreement between states governed by international law, regardless of its particular designation. An instrument need not be called a “treaty” to have treaty status.
The International Court of Justice applied that principle in Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain. Bahrain argued that minutes signed during diplomatic negotiations did not constitute a binding international agreement. The Court examined the terms of the instrument rather than its title and concluded that the minutes created rights and obligations for the parties (ICJ, 1994). The case illustrates a broader point relevant to the Makkah agreement: legal effect depends on substance and intended commitment, not diplomatic labeling alone.
The publicly announced mutual-defense undertaking strongly suggests an intention to create obligations rather than merely record political aspirations. A definitive conclusion, however, requires the agreement itself. Its provisions on signature, ratification, approval, and entry into force have not been made publicly available.
The Vienna Convention also requires careful treatment because the three states do not share the same treaty position. Saudi Arabia acceded to the 1969 Convention in 2003. Pakistan signed the Convention in 1970 but has not ratified it, while Türkiye is not listed as a party in the UN Treaty Collection (United Nations, 2026). The VCLT cannot consequently be treated as treaty law binding all three participants.
Many of its rules nevertheless reflect customary international law. International courts have repeatedly relied on VCLT provisions in that capacity. The legal basis must remain clear: a rule may bind Saudi Arabia through the Convention itself while applying to Pakistan or Türkiye because the same rule forms part of customary international law.
Signature must also be distinguished from entry into force. Some treaties become binding upon signature; others require ratification, domestic approval, an exchange of instruments, or another procedure agreed by the parties. The public signing ceremony on 7 August does not establish which method governs the Makkah agreement. Until the relevant provisions are disclosed, statements that the pact immediately entered into force should be avoided.
Article 102 of the UN Charter creates a separate registration requirement. UN members must register their treaties and international agreements with the Secretariat, and an unregistered agreement may not be invoked before a UN organ (United Nations, 1945). Failure to register does not, by itself, render a treaty legally nonexistent or void.
2.2 The Collective-Defense Clause and Its Unpublished Limits
The central publicly confirmed provision is the collective-defense formula. The three governments have stated that an armed attack against one participant will be regarded as an attack against all and that the arrangement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026).
That language establishes the political core of the pact. It does not yet reveal the precise obligation triggered when an attack occurs.
Mutual-defense treaties can impose very different duties. Some require military assistance. Others require consultation or permit each party to determine what form of assistance it considers appropriate. NATO's Article 5 is instructive: an armed attack against one ally is treated as an attack against all, but each member takes the action it “deems necessary,” which may include armed force. The collective-defense principle and an automatic obligation to enter a war are not the same thing.
The published material does not show whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Pakistan must automatically deploy armed forces after an attack. Assistance could conceivably involve air defense, intelligence, logistics, weapons, maritime protection, or diplomatic measures instead. The operative treaty language is needed before the scope of the obligation can be stated with confidence.
The meaning of “armed attack” is equally important. The agreement may use the term in the same sense as Article 51 of the UN Charter, adopt a separate treaty definition, or leave the expression undefined. That distinction could become decisive where the triggering conduct involves missiles, drones, cyber operations, attacks on shipping, or armed groups rather than a conventional interstate invasion.
Other limits remain unknown. The public materials do not establish the territorial reach of the commitment, its application to forces stationed abroad, the treatment of military vessels or aircraft, or the position of conflicts already underway when the pact was concluded. Nor has the existence of a permanent political council, integrated command structure, formal accession procedure, withdrawal mechanism, or dispute-settlement system been publicly demonstrated.
These uncertainties do not diminish the significance of the agreement. They define the boundary between what can presently be established and what remains conjectural. The collective-defense commitment is clear at the political level. The unpublished treaty provisions will determine how demanding that commitment is in law and whether the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement develops into a formalized alliance structure rather than remaining a flexible framework for mutual defense.
3. Collective Self-Defense Under the UN Charter
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement may determine what Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan owe one another after an attack, but it cannot create an independent right to use force against third states. That question remains governed by the UN Charter and applicable customary international law. The distinction between an alliance obligation and the legal authority to employ armed force is central to understanding the pact.
3.1 Articles 2(4) and 51 and the Armed-Attack Threshold
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense “if an armed attack occurs” (United Nations, 1945).
Not every unlawful use of force necessarily constitutes an armed attack. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice distinguished the gravest forms of the use of force, capable of triggering self-defense, from less grave conduct. The Court also recognized that sending armed groups whose operations are comparable in scale and effects to attacks by regular forces may amount to an armed attack (ICJ, 1986).
The distinction constrains the operation of the Makkah pact. Its parties may agree that certain hostile conduct triggers consultation, assistance, or other treaty consequences. They cannot, by agreement among themselves, lower the Article 51 threshold and thereby create a broader entitlement to use force against another state.
Nicaragua also established an important condition for collective self-defense. The Court rejected the idea that a state may exercise collective self-defense merely because it independently believes an ally has been attacked. The victim state must regard itself as having suffered an armed attack, and collective military assistance requires a request from that state (ICJ, 1986). An alliance commitment is consequently not a standing authorization for one member to begin hostilities on another's behalf.
3.2 Necessity, Proportionality, and Security Council Reporting
Even after an armed attack, defensive force remains limited by necessity and proportionality. These conditions form part of customary international law and apply alongside Article 51 (ICJ, 1986).
In Oil Platforms, the ICJ scrutinized the United States' attempt to justify attacks on Iranian oil installations as self-defense. The Court examined the evidence connecting Iran to the alleged armed attacks and the necessity and proportionality of the American response. It concluded that the requirements for the claimed justification had not been established (ICJ, 2003). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo similarly illustrates that serious cross-border insecurity does not dispense with the need to establish a lawful basis for defensive force (ICJ, 2005).
Article 51 also requires measures taken in self-defense to be reported immediately to the Security Council. Any consultation or notification procedure created by the Makkah agreement would operate separately from that Charter requirement.
The practical limit is significant. A defense pact can determine who has promised to assist an attacked state. It cannot transform punitive retaliation, preventive war, or an unnecessary or disproportionate military response into lawful self-defense.
3.3 Armed Groups, Proxy Forces, and Regional Application
The most difficult application of the pact may arise from attacks by armed groups rather than regular state forces. Missile and drone strikes, attacks on commercial shipping, and cross-border operations by organized armed groups can raise different questions from a conventional interstate invasion.
An armed group's conduct may itself reach the armed-attack threshold. A separate issue is whether its conduct can be attributed to another state under the law of state responsibility. Attribution is not automatically established because a government finances, equips, supports, or maintains political ties with an armed organization; the applicable legal tests require a closer examination of the relationship and the conduct concerned.
A further controversy arises when a non-state actor carries out a serious attack from the territory of another state but its conduct is not attributable to that state. Practice since 2001 has strengthened the argument that Article 51 may apply to armed attacks by non-state actors. Some states have also relied on the proposition that force may be used where the territorial state is “unable or unwilling” to suppress the threat. That formulation remains contested and cannot be treated as a universally accepted rule of customary international law (Bethlehem, 2012).
This uncertainty is directly relevant to the Makkah agreement. An attack originating from Yemen, Iraq, or another state could engage the pact politically while leaving difficult legal questions about attribution, territorial sovereignty, and the permissible target of collective self-defense. The treaty may determine which partners are expected to respond; it does not resolve those questions under general international law.
4. Turkey's NATO Obligations and the Makkah Pact
Turkey's participation adds a second collective-defense framework to its existing obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. Membership in two defense arrangements is not inherently incompatible. The legal issue is whether Turkey could comply with both if their obligations were engaged by the same crisis.
4.1 NATO Articles 5, 6, and 8
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not automatically require every NATO member to enter a war. An armed attack against one or more allies is regarded as an attack against them all, but each state assists by taking the action it “deems necessary,” including the possible use of armed force (NATO, 1949). The provision thus combines collective obligation with national discretion over the form of the response.
Article 6 limits the geographical application of Article 5. Turkey's participation in the Makkah agreement does not extend NATO protection to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. An attack on either state would not become an attack on NATO merely because Turkey has separately undertaken to assist it.
Article 8 addresses the potential overlap more directly. NATO members declare that their existing international commitments do not conflict with the North Atlantic Treaty and undertake not to enter future international engagements that conflict with it (NATO, 1949). The provision does not prohibit Turkey from concluding another defense agreement. A legal problem would arise only if obligations under the Makkah pact were genuinely incompatible with Turkey's NATO commitments.
Both frameworks also remain subordinate to the UN Charter rules governing the use of force. Article 103 of the Charter provides that Charter obligations prevail over conflicting obligations arising from other international agreements (United Nations, 1945).
4.2 Parallel Alliances and Possible Conflicts
Turkey could receive a request for assistance from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan in circumstances where NATO Article 5 was never engaged. That situation would not itself create a treaty conflict. Ankara would be responding under a separate defense arrangement with a different membership and geographical reach.
The harder case would arise if the Makkah agreement required Turkey to take action incompatible with its NATO obligations or with the UN Charter. Much would then depend on provisions that remain unpublished, particularly the nature of the assistance required and the discretion retained by each party.
Turkey has publicly presented the new arrangement as compatible with its existing bilateral and multilateral commitments. That position is relevant evidence of Ankara's understanding of the pact, although it cannot predetermine the legal consequences of a future conflict (Reuters, 2026).
The arrangement consequently fits more comfortably, at least for now, within Turkey's policy of strategic autonomy than within claims that Ankara is replacing NATO. Turkey can seek additional regional partnerships while remaining a NATO ally. The decisive legal question is not the existence of overlapping alliances, but whether their concrete obligations can be performed consistently.
5. Pakistan's Nuclear Capability and Non-Proliferation Law
Pakistan's participation gives the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement a strategic dimension that would not exist in an alliance composed entirely of non-nuclear states. Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey do not. That disparity may affect how potential adversaries assess the consequences of attacking one of the three parties, but it does not establish that nuclear weapons form part of the pact.
5.1 Extended Deterrence Is Not an Automatic Nuclear Guarantee
Extended nuclear deterrence generally describes a situation in which a nuclear-armed state seeks to deter attacks against an ally by making its own nuclear capabilities relevant to that ally's defense. Such arrangements depend on political commitments, military planning, declaratory policy, and the credibility of the nuclear state's willingness to respond. A defense treaty involving a nuclear-armed member does not create extended nuclear deterrence simply by virtue of membership.
Nothing publicly disclosed about the Makkah agreement establishes that Pakistan has promised to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons in defense of Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Reporting on the agreement confirms a collective-defense commitment but has not identified a nuclear provision (Reuters, 2026). Describing Saudi Arabia or Turkey as already protected by a Pakistani “nuclear umbrella” would consequently go beyond the available evidence.
Pakistan's arsenal may still influence the pact's deterrent effect. A potential adversary cannot ignore the possibility that a conflict involving Pakistan could escalate in ways that would not arise in an alliance of non-nuclear states. That strategic uncertainty is different from a legal commitment to provide nuclear protection.
The distinction is especially important while the operative treaty provisions remain unpublished. A collective-defense obligation could require conventional military assistance, intelligence support, air defense, or other measures without extending to nuclear weapons at all.
5.2 The NPT and the Law Governing Nuclear Weapons
The parties occupy different positions under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are parties as non-nuclear-weapon states. Pakistan is not a party to the NPT and developed its nuclear arsenal outside that treaty framework.
Article II would become directly relevant if the Makkah arrangement or a later agreement involved the transfer of Pakistani nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or control over them to Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Non-nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT undertake not to receive such weapons or control over them, directly or indirectly, and not to manufacture or otherwise acquire them (United Nations, 1968).
Nothing currently disclosed indicates such an arrangement. Conventional defense cooperation, joint exercises, or political reliance on the deterrent effect of an ally's arsenal is not equivalent to receiving nuclear weapons or control over them. Any future claim involving Pakistani nuclear deployment, basing, transfer, or shared control would require separate factual and legal analysis.
Nuclear weapons would also remain subject to the general international law governing force and armed conflict. In the 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice held unanimously that a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be unlawful if it violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter or failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 51. The Court also confirmed that international humanitarian law applies to nuclear weapons (ICJ, 1996).
The Court did not declare every conceivable threat or use lawful or unlawful. By the President's casting vote, it concluded that such use would generally be contrary to the rules of international humanitarian law, while stating that it could not reach a definitive conclusion in an extreme circumstance of self-defense in which the very survival of a state was at stake (ICJ, 1996). Pakistan's nuclear status may strengthen the strategic weight of the pact, but it does not remove nuclear weapons from the legal constraints applicable to the use of force.
6. Is the Pact Really a New “Islamic NATO”?
The description “Islamic NATO” draws attention to a genuine feature of the Makkah agreement: three major Muslim-majority states have adopted a collective-defense commitment at a moment of severe regional instability. The analogy becomes less convincing, however, when the arrangements are compared as legal and institutional systems.
6.1 Collective Defense and the NATO Analogy
The clearest resemblance lies in deterrence. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have agreed that an armed attack against one will be regarded as an attack against all. The purpose is to alter an adversary's calculations by making aggression against one state potentially engage the capabilities of the other two.
NATO rests on a comparable collective-defense principle, but Article 5 is only one element of the North Atlantic system. NATO has permanent political bodies, established military commands, defense-planning mechanisms, interoperability arrangements, consultation procedures, an accession process, and decades of institutional practice. Those structures help convert a treaty commitment into an operational alliance.
The publicly available information about the Makkah pact does not establish an equivalent institutional architecture. No integrated command structure, permanent political council, common defense-planning system, or comparable accession machinery has yet been made public. The agreement may develop such mechanisms, but their existence cannot be assumed.
The “Islamic” element is better understood politically than legally. All three states are Muslim-majority countries, and the signing in Makkah carries substantial symbolic weight. The pact is nevertheless an agreement among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, not a collective-defense treaty of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation or of Muslim-majority states generally. No disclosed provision makes religion a legal criterion for participation.
“Islamic NATO” may consequently work as political shorthand, but it currently overstates the institutional similarity. The more accurate comparison is between NATO, a mature and highly institutionalized alliance, and a newly created trilateral collective-defense framework whose operational structure remains largely undisclosed.
6.2 A New Regional Security Architecture
The agreement may prove more significant for what it says about changing regional alignments than for its resemblance to NATO. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan enter the pact with different strategic interests and existing partnerships, yet all three have reasons to expand the range of security relationships available to them.
Saudi Arabia gains additional access to substantial Turkish and Pakistani military capabilities while reducing reliance on any single external security partner. This does not require Riyadh to abandon its established relationship with the United States. Diversification can coexist with traditional partnerships.
Turkey gains a more formal role in Gulf security while remaining inside NATO. Its participation fits a pattern of strategic autonomy in which Ankara maintains its Atlantic commitments while developing security relationships that serve interests outside NATO's geographical and institutional framework.
Pakistan strengthens its position beyond South Asia and gives a multilateral form to long-standing relationships with both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Its military capabilities, including its nuclear arsenal, increase the pact's deterrent significance even where no specific nuclear guarantee exists.
Mutual-defense commitments also carry risks. A future India-Pakistan crisis, a major attack on Saudi Arabia by an armed group, or a conflict involving Turkey could force the parties to decide how broadly they understand an “attack on one” and what assistance the agreement requires. Those scenarios could expose differences that are difficult to see while the pact remains untested.
The possibility of enlargement adds another uncertainty. Reuters reported that the arrangement is open to other regional states (Reuters, 2026), but no publicly available accession procedure has yet been identified. Political openness to additional participants is not the same as a legally established mechanism for membership.
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement is thus better understood, at this stage, as evidence of a more regionally driven and increasingly multipolar security order. Its long-term importance will depend on whether the three states convert a collective-defense pledge into permanent institutions, coordinated military planning, and sustained common practice.
Also read
Conclusion
The Saudi Arabia–Turkey–Pakistan defense pact is not, on the evidence presently available, a new NATO. It is a significant collective-defense agreement among three militarily important Muslim-majority states, and the formula treating an attack against one as an attack against all gives the “Islamic NATO” comparison some political force. The analogy becomes misleading when it implies that an alliance with NATO's institutional depth, integrated military structures, and established procedures has already been created.
International law also places a boundary around the pact's most important promise. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan may define the assistance they owe one another, but their agreement cannot enlarge the right to use force under the UN Charter. Any military response undertaken as collective self-defense must still satisfy Article 51 and the applicable requirements concerning an armed attack, necessity, proportionality, and the position of the state seeking assistance.
Turkey's NATO membership does not extend Article 5 protection to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, while participation in a second defense arrangement does not by itself place Ankara in breach of the North Atlantic Treaty. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal likewise adds deterrent weight without establishing that Riyadh or Ankara has obtained a Pakistani nuclear guarantee.
The most important questions remain inside the unpublished agreement. Its entry-into-force provisions, the assistance required after an attack, territorial scope, institutional machinery, accession rules, and military implementation will ultimately determine whether the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement remains a flexible regional defense pact or develops into a more durable alliance system. Until those elements become public, “Islamic NATO” is better treated as a political analogy than as a legal description.
References
Bethlehem, D. (2012) ‘Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors’, American Journal of International Law, 106(4), pp. 770–777.
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, judgment, 27 June, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
International Court of Justice (1994) Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, judgment, 1 July, I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 112.
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, 8 July, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), judgment, 6 November, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161.
International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), judgment, 19 December, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168.
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, 4 April 1949, entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243.
Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2025) ‘Joint Statement on the State Visit of Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ [online]. Available at: https://mofa.gov.pk/press-releases/joint-statement-on-the-state-visit-of-prime-minister-of-the-islamic-republic-of-pakistan-muhammad-shehbaz-sharif-to-the-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2026a) ‘Makkah Al-Mukarramah Summit for Joint Defence’ [online]. Available at: https://ebs.publicnow.com/view/07B06D4C5778DEFD2331EBC589C783C47EA2D672 (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2026b) ‘Transcript of the Press Briefing by the Spokesperson on Thursday 23rd July 2026’ [online]. Available at: https://mofa.gov.pk/press-releases/transcript-of-the-press-briefing-by-the-spokesperson-on-thursday-23rd-july-2026 (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan pledge mutual defence as Middle East turmoil escalates’ [online], 7 August. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/saudi-arabia-turkey-pakistan-sign-joint-defence-deal-amid-regional-turmoil-2026-08-07/ (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968) opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington, 1 July 1968, entered into force 5 March 1970, 729 UNTS 161.
United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.a) Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, No. 10485 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002801d56c5 (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.b) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, No. 18232 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003902f (Accessed: 7 August 2026).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.