The 'Rules-Based Order' Is the Enemy of International Law
As far as cheerleaders of the RBO are concerned, the inconsistency and unevenness of applying the rules are central to its functioning.
Paul Poast is far too charitable to Biden in his assessment of the administration’s response to the ICC prosecutor’s application this week:
For someone so astute in the ways of realpolitik as Biden, his response is particularly surprising. When the staunchest supporter of a rules-based order is openly hypocritical about the application of that order’s rules, it gives up the game. Even if one gives no weight to respecting norms and the law for their own sake, Biden’s knee-jerk reaction to the ICC’s ruling against Netanyahu, someone who Biden himself has disparaged, undermines his administration’s broader strategic objectives. International law can be a tool of the strong as much as protection of the weak, and Biden just mishandled that tool.
Biden’s response earlier this week was outrageous, but I didn’t think anyone would find it surprising. The president has made a habit of letting Israel off the hook and running interference for their government, and he stayed true to form with his denunciation of the application for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. The administration likes to talk about defending the “rules-based order,” and that order has always been a two-tiered system that privileges some states and penalizes others. Biden isn’t going to hold a U.S. client accountable for its violations of international law, and he will lash out at anyone that tries to do so.
As far as cheerleaders of the RBO are concerned, the inconsistency and unevenness of applying the rules are central to its functioning. They see the rules as a bludgeon to be used against others, but they should never applied to themselves or to the states that they support. The prospect that U.S. client leaders might be held accountable for war crimes is seen as a threat to Washington’s “rules-based order” that exempts those clients from the rules.