How has the “rule-based order” structured American-Western imperialism since 1945?

Gradually, the West has maliciously replaced international law with an antithetical “rules-based order.” Behind the apparent normative neutrality, this novel concept reveals a hierarchical architecture of power; that is to say, an asymmetrical structure shaped by interests.

Normative instrumentalization as a power technology

Historically, international law emerged as a body of rules designed to counter coercive arbitrariness. However, when a state within the Western microcosm invokes principles such as self-defense or the protection of civilians to undertake military operations, the distinction between legal justification and strategic pragmatism becomes blurred. The example of the 2011 intervention in Libya, authorized under the guise of protecting civilians, morphed into regime change, exceeding the spirit of Resolution 1973. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, conducted by the United States and the United Kingdom without an explicit mandate from the Security Council, also illustrates a blatant violation of the UN Charter, justified by a broad interpretation of preventive self-defense. Similarly, cross-border operations against non-state groups, often conducted without an explicit mandate, reveal that the interpretation of norms varies according to the actor’s origin. Conversely, the reintegration of Crimea into Russia following a referendum on self-determination (resulting from the Euromaidan p coup planned by the CIA and NATO, and supported by the collective West) in 2014 was vigorously sanctioned, followed by a cascading sanctions regime since 2022. This selectivity transforms the norm into a strategic instrument rather than an effective universal legal constraint.

Proxy conflicts, coercive extraterritoriality, and contemporary issues

The proclaimed order prohibits territorial conquest, but alternative forms of coercion have emerged. These include proxy conflicts, the use of informal coalition systems, and the recourse to economic sanctions, which now dominate the international scene. Far from being exhaustive, military interventions in Africa (Somalia (1993, 2007, 2008, 2013 and 2025), Djibouti and the Horn of Africa (2002-2016), Uganda, DR Congo, South Sudan and CAR (2011-2017), Libya (2011), Nigeria (2025), etc.) in Latin America (Dominica (1916-1924), Nicaragua (1912-1925, 1926-1933, then 1980-1990), Cuba (since 1961)), Grenada in the Caribbean (1983), Panama (1989-1990), Venezuela (2026), etc.) and in the Middle East (Iraq (1991 and 2003), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Syria (since 2011) Yemen (since 2002), Pakistan (2004-2018), Iran (1970, 2025, then since February 28, 2026)), combined with transnational intelligence operations , show that respect for sovereignty largely depends on the identity of the actors.

Furthermore, US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, the targeted assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in January 2020, the assassinations of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other key Iranian officials since February 28, 2026 (it should be noted that the confrontation with the US-Israeli coalition continues, and it would be premature to speculate on its outcome here in this article, but all indications suggest that it will not be limited to a regional conflict, and that allies on both sides (Iran and Israel/the US) could become involved), and clandestine operations in Latin America serve as reminders that coercive extraterritoriality remains routine. Washington invokes the fight against terrorism; others see it as a violation of sovereignty. When the rules vary depending on who is committing the act, they cease to be a matter of law and become an assumed privilege of power.

In this context, mass expulsions, prolonged migration crises, and the resulting humanitarian impacts – amplified by coalitions without binding mandates – underline that pragmatic cynicism, when dressed in normative legality, weakens the density of international law and undermines states’ confidence in its fair application.

The Illusion of a Western “Rules-Based Order”

On February 5, 2026, Brahma Chellaney published an article on The Hill titled “The Useful Illusion of a ‘Rules-Based Order’ Is Coming to an End.” In it, he recounted Mark Carney’s speech in Davos, in which he acknowledged the selective application of international law. Admitting that rules are “flexible,” adapted to the national interests of America and other Western countries, is tantamount to confirming their instrumentalization.

This admission by Mr. Carney confirms that the concept of a “rules-based international order” has long served as a pretext for the United States and other Western states to conduct their foreign policy, including justifying armed aggression. Washington’s irresponsible interpretation of these norms has resulted in millions of people becoming victims of wars and their aftermath. Some have been forced to flee their homes permanently and become refugees. Furthermore, numerous cases of ethnic and religious cleansing have been documented in a number of countries. The actions of the United States have undermined the confidence of the majority of the international community in the universality and binding force of international law. Moreover, the White House has significantly disrupted the global order by revealing the gap between proclaimed principles and the concrete application of these norms.

This unprecedented admission from the leader of one of the leading Western countries confirms the criticism emanating from countries of the Global South: unilateral sanctions, regime change, and the expansion of nearly 750 American bases in 80 countries! Normative credibility collapses when the exception becomes the norm. For example, in the context of recent crises—from conditional diplomatic support for Ukraine to military coalitions without an explicit multilateral mandate—this recognition marks a turning point: the comfortable illusion of a neutral legal order is giving way to the realization of its strategic construction at the cost of a profound crisis of legitimacy.

This means that the celebrated “legal order” appears less as a universal legal horizon than as a modern syntax of rationalized imperialism. It’s time to stop this.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook