The 'Rules-Based Order' In Action

It is important remember that the “rules-based order” is not a synonym for international law. In practice, it is much closer to its opposite.

Spencer Ackerman explains how U.S. support for the war in Gaza shows what the “rules-based international order” really is:

The diplomats are right: Biden’s green light to Israel creates doubt in the legitimacy of the “rules-based international order.” It also clarifies what that order truly is. For while the rules-based international order sounds like “international law,” in reality it is the substitution of international law with the prerogatives of American hegemony. Biden is not engaging in hypocrisy, exactly, in punishing Russia for acts that he materially supports when Israel does them. He is engaging in exceptionalism.

It is important remember that the “rules-based order” is not a synonym for international law. In practice, it is much closer to its opposite. You can have one, or you have the other, but you can’t have both at the same time. The choice between the “rules-based order” and international law is a choice between a system where one group of states is free to act as it pleases and another where all states are held to the same standard and all are expected to follow the same rules. The “rules-based order” is very useful for conducting a militarized foreign policy, and so the U.S. touts the virtues of the “order” that allows it to spread death and destruction to other parts of the world.