The concept of a 'rules-based' world order promoted by the United States has been critiqued as a myth, with decision-makers in Washington failing to specify what these rules are or who set them, according to an analysis by China Military [28c91cac]. This term has been weaponized to suppress nations perceived as threats to US global hegemony. Historically, the US government has prioritized its domestic law over international law and selectively applied international rules to suit its interests. The phrase 'rules-based order' gained traction in the late 1980s and became more prominent in the early 2000s, particularly following the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US has enacted domestic laws targeting specific countries, entities, or individuals, expanding its jurisdiction and maintaining a comprehensive blockade against Cuba for over six decades, despite numerous UN General Assembly resolutions calling for its end. This deliberate vagueness surrounding the term 'rules-based' allows the US to manipulate international norms at will, leading to accusations of ignoring or rewriting rules when they are inconvenient. The rise of non-Western countries and the changing international landscape have prompted the US and its Western allies to emphasize ambiguous rules to slow the shift towards a multipolar world [28c91cac].
In contrast, an article by Tanisha M. Fazal in Foreign Affairs Magazine discusses the critical role of norms in international relations, highlighting how they serve as both motivators and constraints in foreign policy debates [1a99160b]. The article examines violations of norms, such as Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory and China's claims in international waters, arguing that norms are not merely a function of power but are integral to state behavior. It emphasizes that while powerful nations can manipulate norms, they are also bound by them. The article concludes that the United States must actively work to maintain and revive international norms to safeguard human rights and its own influence in the face of rising alternative normative orders.
Adding to this discourse, Pierre Lemieux's analysis on Econlib critiques the concept of 'national interest,' which is often assumed to have a clear meaning but is fundamentally problematic [afa01cd4]. Political scientist William Ruger underscores the importance of national interest in foreign policy, yet the aggregation of individual interests into a collective national interest is fraught with difficulties. Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem illustrates that no voting procedure can represent national interest non-dictatorially, while thinkers like Anthony de Jasay advocate for a stateless society. James Buchanan suggests that the state should protect common interests that are agreed upon by all. The notion of 'national interest' can misrepresent individual preferences, creating a fictitious collective identity that may not reflect the true interests of the populace.
The contrasting perspectives from the analysis by China Military, the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine, and Lemieux's critique on Econlib highlight the complexities of global governance, the role of norms, and the often arbitrary nature of national interests in shaping foreign policy. Together, these sources illuminate the challenges faced by the US in navigating its self-proclaimed role as a leader in a 'rules-based' international order while grappling with the realities of individual and collective interests on the global stage.