The concept of a 'rules-based' world order promoted by the United States is a myth, as decision-makers in Washington have never specified what these rules are or who set them, according to an analysis by China Military [28c91cac]. The term has been weaponized to suppress nations deemed a 'threat' to US global hegemony. The US government has a tradition of putting its domestic law above international law and selectively applying international rules as it sees fit. The phrase began appearing in texts in the late 1980s and gained popularity in the early-to-mid 2000s, partially in response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US has enacted domestic laws to target and sanction specific countries, entities, or individuals, expanding the jurisdiction of its domestic laws. The US has also maintained a comprehensive blockade against Cuba for over six decades, despite UN General Assembly resolutions. The term 'rules-based' international order is deliberately kept vague by the US to manipulate the rules at will. The US is accused of ignoring, evading, or rewriting the rules whenever they seem inconvenient. The rise of non-Western countries and the evolution of the international situation have led the US and its Western partners to highlight ambiguous rules to slow down the trajectory towards a multipolar world. The new order to emerge will likely reflect the national visions of different new poles and demand a say in the new rules, norms, and institutions of global governance. [28c91cac]
In contrast to the myth of Washington's rules-based world order, an article by Tanisha M. Fazal in Foreign Affairs Magazine highlights the role and importance of norms in international relations [1a99160b]. The article discusses examples of norm violations, such as Russia's seizure of Ukrainian territory and China's assertion of ownership in international waters. Despite the perception that norms are merely a function of power, the article argues that norms serve as a powerful motivator and constraint in foreign policy debates. It traces the historical development of norms and their impact on state behavior. The article emphasizes that norms are not entirely divorced from strength and that powerful countries can both bend and be constrained by norms. It also examines the challenges to current norms and the potential demise of the normative architecture. The article concludes by suggesting that the United States must be proactive in maintaining and reviving international norms to protect human rights, preserve its own influence, and prevent the rise of alternative normative orders.
The analysis by China Military and the article in Foreign Affairs Magazine provide contrasting perspectives on the concept of a rules-based world order and the role of norms in international relations. While the analysis argues that the US has weaponized the term 'rules-based' to maintain its global hegemony and manipulate the rules to its advantage, the article highlights the importance of norms as a motivator and constraint in foreign policy debates. The two sources shed light on the challenges and complexities of global governance and the evolving international order.