How the US Substituted International Law with Its Own Distorted Version
In his article, Glenn Diesen, a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, argues that the rules-based international order should be viewed as a failed experiment from the unipolar world era. He contends that it needs to be dismantled in order to restore international law, which he sees as essential for achieving stability and peace.
TroibNews 
**Editor's note:** Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CN.
Despite international law being grounded in the notion of equal sovereignty among states, the existing rules-based international order reinforces hegemony through the concept of sovereign inequality.
As the dominant power, the US has the ability to choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while its adversaries are compelled to adhere strictly to the latter due to perceived deficiencies in their liberal democratic credentials.
For instance, state-centric security, which is a cornerstone of international law, mandates the preservation of states' territorial integrity, whereas human-centric security permits secession based on the principle of self-determination.
Consequently, the US champions territorial integrity in allied countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Spain, while endorsing self-determination in adversarial nations such as Serbia, China, Russia, and Syria.
The disparity in how the US interacts with allies and adversaries—exemplified from Kosovo to Crimea—demonstrates the hypocrisy embedded in Washington's concept of a 'rules-based order,' a situation that would almost be amusing if it weren’t so grave.
The US maintains the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its adversaries to promote liberal democratic ideals, while those adversaries are not afforded the same right regarding the US.
For a hegemonic international order to function effectively, the notion of equal sovereignty among states cannot prevail.
**Constructing a Hegemonic Rules-Based International Order**
The inception of alternative legitimacy sources to endorse sovereign inequality began with NATO's unlawful invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999, executed without a UN mandate.
This breach of international law was rationalized through the lens of liberal values.
The legitimacy of the UN Security Council was even challenged, suggesting its circumvention, as any veto by Russia or China regarding humanitarian intervention was purportedly linked to their lack of liberal democratic values.
Further attempts to create alternative legitimacy sources continued during the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder advocated for an "Alliance of Democracies" to be central to US foreign policy.
A similar initiative proposed the creation of a "Concert of Democracies," where liberal democratic states could operate in a UN-like fashion without being hindered by the vetoes of "authoritarian states."
During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate Senator John McCain endorsed establishing a "League of Democracies."
In December 2021, the US convened its first "Summit for Democracy," aimed at categorizing the global landscape into liberal democracies versus "authoritarian states."
The White House framed sovereign inequality as a democratic imperative: interventions in other nations were termed "support for democracy," while safeguarding the West's own sovereignty was linked to the defense of democratic principles.
These initiatives thus formed the foundation of the "rules-based international order." With an imperialist viewpoint, this paradigm creates distinct rules for the "garden" and alternate rules for the "jungle."
Consequently, the rules-based international order established a two-tiered hierarchy categorizing states as legitimate or illegitimate. The irony of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often crave control over international institutions to safeguard democratic values against the majority. Still, a sustainable and robust international system capable of fostering common rules is essential for effective global governance and conflict resolution.
International law, in line with the UN Charter, rests on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality, asserting that "all states are equal." In stark contrast, the rules-based international order embodies a hegemonic framework founded on sovereign inequality. This leads to a system reminiscent of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where "all animals [states] are equal, but some animals [states] are more equal than others."
In Kosovo, the West championed self-determination as a fundamental right that should take precedence over territorial integrity.
Conversely, in South Ossetia and Crimea, the West emphasized the importance of territorial integrity according to the UN Charter, claiming it should overshadow self-determination.
**Uniform Rules Supplanted by Public Opinion Tribunal**
Rather than resolving disputes through diplomacy and standardized regulations, there exists an impetus to manipulate, moralize, and engage in propaganda, as international issues are adjudicated by a tribunal of public opinion when conflicting principles arise.
Consequently, deceit and extreme rhetoric have become widespread.
The rules-based international order falls short in establishing cohesive guidelines for managing international relations—the very essence of global order.
Both China and Russia have criticized the rules-based international order as a framework that enables double standards.
Xie Feng, the former Chinese Vice Foreign Minister and current ambassador to the US, noted that the rules-based international order introduces the "law of the jungle," wherein unilateralism supplants universally accepted international law.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has similarly rebuked the rules-based international order for establishing a parallel legal structure that legitimizes unilateralism. He stated, "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."
Ultimately, the rules-based international order lacks specific guidelines, fails to achieve global acceptance, and does not provide genuine order.
Therefore, it should be considered a failed experiment stemming from a unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a fundamental prerequisite for stability and peace.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
Despite international law being grounded in the notion of equal sovereignty among states, the existing rules-based international order reinforces hegemony through the concept of sovereign inequality.
As the dominant power, the US has the ability to choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while its adversaries are compelled to adhere strictly to the latter due to perceived deficiencies in their liberal democratic credentials.
For instance, state-centric security, which is a cornerstone of international law, mandates the preservation of states' territorial integrity, whereas human-centric security permits secession based on the principle of self-determination.
Consequently, the US champions territorial integrity in allied countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Spain, while endorsing self-determination in adversarial nations such as Serbia, China, Russia, and Syria.
The disparity in how the US interacts with allies and adversaries—exemplified from Kosovo to Crimea—demonstrates the hypocrisy embedded in Washington's concept of a 'rules-based order,' a situation that would almost be amusing if it weren’t so grave.
The US maintains the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its adversaries to promote liberal democratic ideals, while those adversaries are not afforded the same right regarding the US.
For a hegemonic international order to function effectively, the notion of equal sovereignty among states cannot prevail.
**Constructing a Hegemonic Rules-Based International Order**
The inception of alternative legitimacy sources to endorse sovereign inequality began with NATO's unlawful invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999, executed without a UN mandate.
This breach of international law was rationalized through the lens of liberal values.
The legitimacy of the UN Security Council was even challenged, suggesting its circumvention, as any veto by Russia or China regarding humanitarian intervention was purportedly linked to their lack of liberal democratic values.
Further attempts to create alternative legitimacy sources continued during the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder advocated for an "Alliance of Democracies" to be central to US foreign policy.
A similar initiative proposed the creation of a "Concert of Democracies," where liberal democratic states could operate in a UN-like fashion without being hindered by the vetoes of "authoritarian states."
During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate Senator John McCain endorsed establishing a "League of Democracies."
In December 2021, the US convened its first "Summit for Democracy," aimed at categorizing the global landscape into liberal democracies versus "authoritarian states."
The White House framed sovereign inequality as a democratic imperative: interventions in other nations were termed "support for democracy," while safeguarding the West's own sovereignty was linked to the defense of democratic principles.
These initiatives thus formed the foundation of the "rules-based international order." With an imperialist viewpoint, this paradigm creates distinct rules for the "garden" and alternate rules for the "jungle."
Consequently, the rules-based international order established a two-tiered hierarchy categorizing states as legitimate or illegitimate. The irony of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often crave control over international institutions to safeguard democratic values against the majority. Still, a sustainable and robust international system capable of fostering common rules is essential for effective global governance and conflict resolution.
International law, in line with the UN Charter, rests on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality, asserting that "all states are equal." In stark contrast, the rules-based international order embodies a hegemonic framework founded on sovereign inequality. This leads to a system reminiscent of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where "all animals [states] are equal, but some animals [states] are more equal than others."
In Kosovo, the West championed self-determination as a fundamental right that should take precedence over territorial integrity.
Conversely, in South Ossetia and Crimea, the West emphasized the importance of territorial integrity according to the UN Charter, claiming it should overshadow self-determination.
**Uniform Rules Supplanted by Public Opinion Tribunal**
Rather than resolving disputes through diplomacy and standardized regulations, there exists an impetus to manipulate, moralize, and engage in propaganda, as international issues are adjudicated by a tribunal of public opinion when conflicting principles arise.
Consequently, deceit and extreme rhetoric have become widespread.
The rules-based international order falls short in establishing cohesive guidelines for managing international relations—the very essence of global order.
Both China and Russia have criticized the rules-based international order as a framework that enables double standards.
Xie Feng, the former Chinese Vice Foreign Minister and current ambassador to the US, noted that the rules-based international order introduces the "law of the jungle," wherein unilateralism supplants universally accepted international law.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has similarly rebuked the rules-based international order for establishing a parallel legal structure that legitimizes unilateralism. He stated, "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."
Ultimately, the rules-based international order lacks specific guidelines, fails to achieve global acceptance, and does not provide genuine order.
Therefore, it should be considered a failed experiment stemming from a unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a fundamental prerequisite for stability and peace.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
