Spencer Ackerman explains how U.S. support for the war in Gaza shows what the “rules-based international order” really is:
The diplomats are right: Biden’s green light to Israel creates doubt in the legitimacy of the “rules-based international order.” It also clarifies what that order truly is. For while the rules-based international order sounds like “international law,” in reality it is the substitution of international law with the prerogatives of American hegemony. Biden is not engaging in hypocrisy, exactly, in punishing Russia for acts that he materially supports when Israel does them. He is engaging in exceptionalism.
It is important remember that the “rules-based order” is not a synonym for international law. In practice, it is much closer to its opposite. You can have one, or you have the other, but you can’t have both at the same time. The choice between the “rules-based order” and international law is a choice between a system where one group of states is free to act as it pleases and another where all states are held to the same standard and all are expected to follow the same rules. The “rules-based order” is very useful for conducting a militarized foreign policy, and so the U.S. touts the virtues of the “order” that allows it to spread death and destruction to other parts of the world.
Ackerman adds a bit later, “That is how the rules-based international order operates. It doesn’t replace the mechanisms of international law; it places asterisks beside them. The rules may bind US adversaries, but the U.S. and its clients can opt out.” The U.S. and its clients will still claim the protections of international law, but they do not have to accept its constraints or responsibilities. They will use international law as a bludgeon against others, but they are not bound by its limits.
The appeal of belonging to the “rules-based order” for some governments is obvious enough. Membership has its privileges. Once a state qualifies as one of the states that is on the side of the “order,” it will never have to worry about being sanctioned or attacked for any abuses it may commit. Atrocities that would make another state a pariah are brushed aside and ignored by Washington. Illegal annexations are no problem. Unprovoked attacks on neighbors are always reimagined as defensive actions.
When hawkish defenders lament that the “rules-based order” is breaking down, they are usually not worried about threats to international peace and security. What really concerns them is that the U.S. and its clients may be losing their ability to dictate terms to others and to use force to impose their will. Invoking the “rules-based order” is how the U.S. and its clients often justify their aggressive and intrusive policies, and they predictably treat any opposition to those policies as threats to the “order.” This is the window dressing that these states use to lend the appearance of legitimacy to their actions.
As John Dugard concluded in an important article published earlier this year, “The RBO is something other than international law. It is an alternative regime outside the discipline of international law which inevitably challenges and threatens international law.” If states respect international law, they will have to turn their backs on this other system that seeks to undermine it. If the U.S. is ever going to respect and adhere to international law consistently, it will have to rid itself of this pernicious concept of the “rules-based order.”