How the US Attempted to Supplant International Law with Its Own Distorted Version
Explore the irony of Washington's ‘rules-based order’ as seen through its contrasting actions from Kosovo to Crimea. While the situation has its humorous aspects, the underlying seriousness cannot be ignored. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
**From Kosovo to Crimea, the Hypocrisy of Washington’s ‘Rules-Based Order’ Would Be Funny If It Weren’t So Serious**
International law is founded on the principle of equal sovereignty among states, but the so-called rules-based international order perpetuates hegemony through sovereign inequality.
The rules-based order is frequently portrayed as an extension of international law supplemented by international human rights law, a view that seems generally benign and progressive. However, this perspective introduces conflicting principles and regulations into the mix, resulting in a system where “might makes right.” While international human rights law aims to enhance individual rights, it often stands in opposition to the state-centric security that underpins traditional international law.
As the hegemonic power, the US can selectively prioritize human-centric or state-centric security. In contrast, its adversaries must adhere strictly to state-centered security due to their perceived deficiencies in liberal democratic values. For instance, while state-centric security emphasizes the territorial integrity of nations, human-centric security may endorse secession under self-determination. Consequently, the US champions territorial integrity in allied nations like Ukraine, Georgia, or Spain but supports self-determination in adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia, and Syria. The US asserts the right to intervene in the internal matters of its rivals to advance liberal democratic values, yet such interference is denied to its adversaries regarding domestic issues in the US itself. A hegemonic international framework thus precludes the notion of equal sovereignty among all nations.
**Constructing the Hegemonic Rules-Based International Order**
The construction of alternative legitimacy sources to promote sovereign inequality began with NATO's unlawful invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999, which occurred without a UN mandate. This breach of international law was justified by appealing to liberal principles. Even the credibility of the UN Security Council was questioned, arguing that its humanitarian interventions were hindered by Russia and China's vetoes, allegedly due to their lack of liberal democratic ethos.
In 2003, efforts to create alternative authority continued with the rationale for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder called for an “Alliance of Democracies” as a pivotal aspect of US foreign policy. There were proposals for a "Concert of Democracies" that would allow liberal democracies to operate independently of authoritarian vetoes. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain advocated for a “League of Democracies.” In December 2021, the US held its first “Summit for Democracy,” aiming to create a divide between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes. This language framed sovereign inequality within the context of democracy, where Washington's interventions were characterized as “support for democracy,” while maintaining that defending the West's sovereignty entailed upholding democratic values. These initiatives collectively represent what is termed the “rules-based international order.” With an imperial perspective, this approach establishes one set of rules for the “garden” and another for the “jungle.”
The rules-based order thus established a bifurcated system categorizing states as either legitimate or illegitimate. The paradox inherent in liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often seek to dominate international institutions to safeguard their democratic values against majority control. Nonetheless, a robust and adaptable international system that can foster common governance rules and resolve disputes is critical for effective international relations.
International law, following the UN Charter, is based on the Westphalian tenet of sovereign equality, affirming that “all states are equal.” Conversely, the rules-based international order reflects a hegemonic model of sovereign inequality. This inequality echoes the principle articulated in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm': “all animals [states] are equal, but some animals [states] are more equal than others.” In Kosovo, the West advocated for self-determination as a fundamental right of secession, to be prioritized over territorial integrity. In contrast, during the instances involving South Ossetia and Crimea, the West maintained that the integrity of borders, as outlined in the UN Charter, should take precedence over self-determination.
**Uniform Rules Replaced with a Tribunal of Public Opinion**
Rather than resolving disputes through diplomacy and consistent regulations, the absence of uniform rules creates incentives for propaganda and manipulation, with international disagreements often settled by public opinion. This environment has normalized deceit and hyperbolic rhetoric. For example, prior to intervention in 1999, the US and UK made spurious claims regarding war crimes to legitimize their actions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was notably quoted, stating that the Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide.”
The rules-based international order has failed to establish a cohesive set of governing principles for international relations, a fundamental aspect of global order. Both China and Russia have condemned this rules-based order as a dual framework that perpetuates double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng expressed that the rules-based order replaces universally accepted international law with unilateralism, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly critiqued this system for creating a separate legal framework that endorses unilateral actions:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law – all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialized agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognized structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that, they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action.”
The rules-based international order lacks defined regulations, is not widely accepted, and fails to deliver genuine order. It should be regarded as a failed experiment stemming from the unipolar world order, necessitating its dissolution to restore international law as a cornerstone for global stability and peace.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
International law is founded on the principle of equal sovereignty among states, but the so-called rules-based international order perpetuates hegemony through sovereign inequality.
The rules-based order is frequently portrayed as an extension of international law supplemented by international human rights law, a view that seems generally benign and progressive. However, this perspective introduces conflicting principles and regulations into the mix, resulting in a system where “might makes right.” While international human rights law aims to enhance individual rights, it often stands in opposition to the state-centric security that underpins traditional international law.
As the hegemonic power, the US can selectively prioritize human-centric or state-centric security. In contrast, its adversaries must adhere strictly to state-centered security due to their perceived deficiencies in liberal democratic values. For instance, while state-centric security emphasizes the territorial integrity of nations, human-centric security may endorse secession under self-determination. Consequently, the US champions territorial integrity in allied nations like Ukraine, Georgia, or Spain but supports self-determination in adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia, and Syria. The US asserts the right to intervene in the internal matters of its rivals to advance liberal democratic values, yet such interference is denied to its adversaries regarding domestic issues in the US itself. A hegemonic international framework thus precludes the notion of equal sovereignty among all nations.
**Constructing the Hegemonic Rules-Based International Order**
The construction of alternative legitimacy sources to promote sovereign inequality began with NATO's unlawful invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999, which occurred without a UN mandate. This breach of international law was justified by appealing to liberal principles. Even the credibility of the UN Security Council was questioned, arguing that its humanitarian interventions were hindered by Russia and China's vetoes, allegedly due to their lack of liberal democratic ethos.
In 2003, efforts to create alternative authority continued with the rationale for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder called for an “Alliance of Democracies” as a pivotal aspect of US foreign policy. There were proposals for a "Concert of Democracies" that would allow liberal democracies to operate independently of authoritarian vetoes. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain advocated for a “League of Democracies.” In December 2021, the US held its first “Summit for Democracy,” aiming to create a divide between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes. This language framed sovereign inequality within the context of democracy, where Washington's interventions were characterized as “support for democracy,” while maintaining that defending the West's sovereignty entailed upholding democratic values. These initiatives collectively represent what is termed the “rules-based international order.” With an imperial perspective, this approach establishes one set of rules for the “garden” and another for the “jungle.”
The rules-based order thus established a bifurcated system categorizing states as either legitimate or illegitimate. The paradox inherent in liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often seek to dominate international institutions to safeguard their democratic values against majority control. Nonetheless, a robust and adaptable international system that can foster common governance rules and resolve disputes is critical for effective international relations.
International law, following the UN Charter, is based on the Westphalian tenet of sovereign equality, affirming that “all states are equal.” Conversely, the rules-based international order reflects a hegemonic model of sovereign inequality. This inequality echoes the principle articulated in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm': “all animals [states] are equal, but some animals [states] are more equal than others.” In Kosovo, the West advocated for self-determination as a fundamental right of secession, to be prioritized over territorial integrity. In contrast, during the instances involving South Ossetia and Crimea, the West maintained that the integrity of borders, as outlined in the UN Charter, should take precedence over self-determination.
**Uniform Rules Replaced with a Tribunal of Public Opinion**
Rather than resolving disputes through diplomacy and consistent regulations, the absence of uniform rules creates incentives for propaganda and manipulation, with international disagreements often settled by public opinion. This environment has normalized deceit and hyperbolic rhetoric. For example, prior to intervention in 1999, the US and UK made spurious claims regarding war crimes to legitimize their actions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was notably quoted, stating that the Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide.”
The rules-based international order has failed to establish a cohesive set of governing principles for international relations, a fundamental aspect of global order. Both China and Russia have condemned this rules-based order as a dual framework that perpetuates double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng expressed that the rules-based order replaces universally accepted international law with unilateralism, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly critiqued this system for creating a separate legal framework that endorses unilateral actions:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law – all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialized agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognized structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that, they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action.”
The rules-based international order lacks defined regulations, is not widely accepted, and fails to deliver genuine order. It should be regarded as a failed experiment stemming from the unipolar world order, necessitating its dissolution to restore international law as a cornerstone for global stability and peace.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
