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........

© New Eastern Outlook