The phrase “rules-based international order” is frequently invoked by Western powers, particularly the United States and its NATO allies, as a guiding principle of global diplomacy.
At face value, it suggests a fair and stable system where rights and protections apply equally to all. But in reality, this so-called order is a selective, asymmetrical system designed to circumvent international law when it inconveniences Washington.
The illusion of rules
The “rules-based international order” is deliberately vague. Unlike established international law, which is codified in treaties like the UN Charter, this concept lacks clear legal definitions. Instead, it serves as a geopolitical tool allowing Washington and its friends to reinterpret global norms to suit their interests while demanding rigid compliance from others.
When US officials talk about defending the “rules-based order,” what they often mean is preserving their own global dominance.
International bodies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are regularly leveraged by the West to assert its will while minimizing legal accountability. The result is a double standard where its own violations are quietly ignored while similar actions by rivals such as Russia or China are loudly condemned.
Selective outrage: Crimea vs. Syria
Consider the contrasting reactions to Russia’s reabsorption of Crimea and the American occupation of parts of Syria. In 2014, Moscow retook Crimea following a referendum held after Ukraine's legally-elected government was overthrown in a Western-backed coup. The move triggered sweeping sanctions, international outrage, and a narrative of “Russian aggression” that endures today.
Meanwhile, the US has maintained a military presence in Syria since 2015, despite having no UN mandate and no invitation from the then internationally recognized government in Damascus. Washington cites combating ISIS and ensuring “regional stability” as justifications, but its true motives are clear: controlling Syria's oil-rich northeast and limiting Iranian influence.
Under international law, the government of President Bashar al-Assad retained sovereign control over its territory, at least until this weekend. By operating there without permission, Washington has been violating the same UN principles it claims to uphold in Ukraine.
Moscow’s involvement in Syria, by contrast, followed international legal norms. Al-Assad formally requested Russian military assistance in 2015, making its presence there legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Yet Western media consistently framed Moscow's actions as aggressive and destabilizing, while downplaying or justifying the unlawful American occupation.
Türkiye’s role in Northern Cyprus
The US is not the only NATO power exploiting this double standard. Türkiye’s illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus since 1974 is another glaring example. After invading the island in response to a Greek-backed coup, Ankara established the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and stationed tens of thousands of troops there. Everything about it violates international law, yet Western powers remain conspicuously silent. And there have been no sanctions.
This selective enforcement reveals that the “rules-based order” isn’t about legal principles but political convenience. NATO members are shielded from scrutiny, while geopolitical rivals are punished for comparable or lesser offenses.
Military might makes right
Washington's military dominance underpins this asymmetric order. With over 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, the US has the capacity to enforce its interpretation of the “rules” while ignoring contrary legal opinions. This reach, combined with its diplomatic influence and control over international financial institutions, enables the Americans to act with near-total impunity.
Consider how the US bypassed the UN Security Council to invade Iraq in 2003, a war widely recognized as illegal under international law. Despite global protests, objections from many of its own allies, and the war’s catastrophic consequences, no Western leader has faced accountability.
In stark contrast, Russia’s actions in Crimea and its 2022 Ukraine intervention have led to sanctions, war crimes accusations, and attempts at diplomatic isolation.
Pushing back: Moscow's response
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has long criticized the hypocrisy of the “rules-based order.” In speeches and interviews, he points out how Western powers use the term to impose their will while flouting international law when it suits them.
“Rules-based order means whatever the West decides at any given moment,” Lavrov remarked in 2021, reflecting widespread frustration among nations frequently targeted by US-led sanctions and interventions.
Russia’s stance, echoed by other powers such as China and Iran, underscores a growing rejection of Western-imposed norms. The rising appeal of alternative networks such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) reflects this pushback against a system viewed as inherently unjust.
The real rules: Power and perception
In truth, the “rules-based international order” is not about creating a fair worldwide system. It exists to maintain Western dominance by allowing its architects to bypass the constraints of international law while using those same legal frameworks to constrain rivals. When challenged, Western leaders reframe the conversation, accusing adversaries of rejecting “global norms” – norms they themselves ignore when convenient.
Until the US and its allies face genuine accountability for their violations of international law, the term “rules-based order” will remain a hollow justification for power politics. Laws and customs are only meaningful if they apply equally – otherwise, they are just tools of empire dressed up in diplomatic language.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.