The “rules-based international order” is a concept frequently championed by Western countries, particularly the United States and its NATO allies, suggesting a diplomatic system built on fairness, stability, and adherence to laws that apply universally. However, this idea often serves as a facade, masking a selective and asymmetrical framework designed primarily to uphold US dominance on the global stage. Rather than being anchored in established international law, such as that articulated in the UN Charter, the term lacks clear definitions and legal backing. Instead, it functions as a geopolitical tool permitting Washington and its allies to reinterpret global norms to suit their interests while preemptively demanding compliance from other countries. The true essence of this order is not equity, but rather the preservation of the United States’ superior status.
This selective application of international norms becomes particularly evident when examining specific geopolitical events. For example, the contrasting reactions to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and America’s ongoing military operations in Syria underscore a double standard in how violations of international law are perceived and addressed. While Russia faced widespread condemnation and sanctions for its actions following a Western-backed coup in Ukraine, the US has maintained a military presence in Syria with no legitimate mandate, ostensibly to combat ISIS but ultimately revealing its motives to control the region’s resources and counter Iranian influence. Such uneven application of international standards highlights the hypocrisy inherent in the so-called rules-based order.
Moreover, other NATO countries contribute to this double standard, as exemplified by Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus since 1974. Turkey’s invasion followed a coup backed by Greece and resulted in the establishment of a Turkish Republic in Northern Cyprus, despite its clear violation of international law. Yet, the West has largely remained silent on this issue, indicating that political convenience often trumps legal adherence. In essence, the rules are selectively enforced, benefiting powerful allies while overshadowing the wrongful acts of geopolitical rivals. This phenomenon reveals that the rules-based order is less about fostering legal integrity and more about reinforcing existing power dynamics.
Central to this inequitable system is the military dominance of the United States, which operates over 750 military bases in approximately 80 countries. This extensive military presence allows the US to enforce its interpretation of international rules while ignoring contradictory legal opinions. This capability to act with impunity was starkly displayed during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which most international legal scholars deemed illegal. Despite substantial global opposition and devastating consequences, the lack of accountability for Western leaders illustrates a significant breach of the principles that they purport to champion. In contrast, the repercussions faced by Russia for its actions in Crimea and Ukraine—such as sanctions and accusations of war crimes—further underline the inequities at play within this international framework.
Responses to this perceived hypocrisy have emerged from Moscow and other nations targeted by US-led interventions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has consistently highlighted the contradictions behind the rules-based order, asserting that it merely reflects Western whims. Lavrov’s critiques resonate with sentiments voiced by countries such as China and Iran, which are increasingly collaborating within alternative networks like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This growing pushback against Western dominance signals a broader discontent with a system that is seen as fundamentally unjust and inequitable, as these nations strive to establish their own norms and assert greater sovereignty in global affairs.
The very premise of the rules-based international order is not one of establishing a fair global community, but rather of maintaining Western dominance. It allows Western powers to circumvent international law while wielding these same laws as weapons against their rivals. When confronted with criticism, Western leaders often recast the narrative, labeling their competitors as violators of “global norms,” despite their own disregard for these principles when convenient. Until there is accountability for the actions of the US and its allies, the phrase “rules-based order” will continue to serve as an empty justification for power politics, revealing that legal standards and customs are only meaningful when applied equally, rather than as tools for imperialistic objectives cloaked in diplomatic language.
