The “Rules Based Order” Is a Fraud, an Attempt to Subvert International Law
New World Order Redux.
Roger Sterling: There are rules.
Bert Cooper: There are other rules.
— From “Mad Men”
Earlier this year, when Switzerland appallingly reneged on its responsibility to utilize the Geneva Conventions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Amnesty International put out a statement:
“This failure is a particular indictment of all European States that have been clamouring their commitment to international law and the rule-based order for several weeks now, in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, only to yet again fail to walk the talk, further devastating whatever remained of international and universal values.”
Amnesty International was of course correct in calling out the deranged hypocrisy of these European states — this statement by then German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, now president of the UNGA, is a good example —pretending fight for a “rules-based international order and the strength of the law more than ever against the might of the strong” when it comes to Russia. Baerbock is of course for shredding international law when it comes to Israel, producing justifications for the criminality of the militarily strong.
But Amnesty International, and of course Baerbock, are wrong in their conflation of “international law” and the “rules-based order”.
The US and German governments don’t believe in international law.
But they insist upon setting the rules.
They get to invoke a given rule at a particular time to suit the designs of Empire. Non-proliferation when that’s the pretext. Feminism when that’s the excuse to demonize someone. Non-aggression when — and only when — that’s convenient.
This is the opposite of having a real legal system, where laws are applied equally to all parties.
Rather, with the “rules based order” the US government can instrumentalize a given rule when that suits its ambitions.
Seeing this saves one a great deal of trouble.
As I noted in June of 2024 when the US government pretended to want a ceasefire in Gaza:
It’s not a ceasefire proposal. It’s a stop-the-ICJ-orders-from-being-implemented resolution.
This is what the US gov means when it says it wants a rules based order and not a law based order.
It sets the rules. It shreds the law when it wants.
So the desperate desire for a dubious “ceasefire” was used to override the application of ICJ orders. Once that was accomplished, the US government could roll over everyone else.
Most of what’s been written about the term “rules based order” has been to distract from the heart of the matter. As Francis Boyle put it to me years ago: “it’s a fraud, instead of International Law.”
Samuel Moyn and Trita Parsi have recently understatedly acknowledged this, writing “many international law experts view the rules-based order concept not as complementary to international law, but as a threat to it.” Amnesty International has lawyers. They know better than to conflate the two terms. Many good people have confused the two because they don’t know.
Some trace the insidious term to Australian politico Kevin Rudd and his first term as Labor prime minister from 2007-10. It picked up in usage around 2016. Appropriately Rudd made his name in 2003 by pushing the Iraq invasion, spouting: “There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does. There’s no dispute as whether he’s in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. He is.”
But use of the term goes back further than Rudd. One example is when the US government was going after Liberia, claiming its actions “directly challenge United States foreign policy objectives in the region and the rule-based international order that is crucial to the peace and prosperity of the United States.” That was from a statement from Bush II on May 23, 2001.
In a sense, it’s a milder rebranding of the New World Order of Bush I.
Thanks to Kyle Smith.
Also see:
My game. My rules. Don't like? Can't play.
There is law that can be applied but as noted, it isn't. This is clear to the world and it makes me wonder why a nation using might to make right bothers to issue such transparent lies to cover what we all can see from videos made by people on the scene of this or that atrocity. The result is that a nation that lies continually, like Israel all of the time and any nation some of the time, is not fooling anyone.
We certainly know from years of experience that anything said by US government spokespeople is not to be trusted. Something fairly recent is the addition of abuse coming from the spokesperson directed at members of the press, such as "such a stupid question!" or "I can't believe you have stooped so low as to ask me that" Respect is gone. Civility is gone. Perhaps we will get back to a member of Congress being physically beaten by another member as happened to Senator Charles Sumner in 1856
I suppose that this or that lie may give this or that official outside of the country a talking point, something to hang on in order to avoid applying the law. Nobody believes the lie but for bureaucratic purposes it works.