“Rules-based order” vs “International law”.

Arnaud Bertrand

An interesting observation is that in many ways this war is the “rules-based order” vs “international law”.

We’re seeing a wholesale and unprecedented attack on all institutions meant to preserve international law: the UN (with even a physical destruction of their offices in Gaza, and I’m not even mentioning the 100+ UN workers killed so far!), the WHO, the ICJ, the ICC, etc. And of course on the very laws and principles they were set up to defend and represent (be it humanitarian law, the rights of the child, the law of war, etc.).

By who? By Israel and, ultimately, their backer the US who defend the “rules-based order”, meaning a system outside of international law that essentially defends whatever the US judges is in its and its allies’ interests at any moment in time. For the best definition I’ve ever read on the “rules-based order”, see this fascinating study in the Leiden Journal of International Law: https://cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0#

So if one takes a step back, that’s a key aspect of the battle at play here. Which is of course immensely ironical because many of these institutions and principles under attack were set up by and within the rules-based order, often in order to preserve and entrench the interests of the order!

But the world has changed, many countries have adapted to the actual rules of the order and so respecting the rules, respecting international law, has evolved from being a burden on others to being a burden on those who created them… Which is why there’s now such a huge gap between the actions of the proponents of the “rules-based order” and what they should be doing if they respected international law.

The other immense irony is that countries of the global South – China, ASEAN countries, South American countries, African countries, etc. – have now become stronger advocates for those multilateral institutions defending international law than the West. Because they’re the ones who adapted to those rules, in many cases much more successfully than the West.

All this to say that when you’re told that global South countries seek to upend the “rules-based order”, you need to be very clear about what you’re speaking about. They seek to change the situation whereby the US and its allies can do whatever they want and thereby make a mockery of international law. In fact what they want is actual rules that everyone respects: they want international law! And those who really want to upend the rules and essentially do whatever the hell they want regardless of any rule – as we’re witnessing right now in Gaza – are the West, those seeking to gaslight us into thinking THEY defend a “rules-based order”.

How will this end? I know how I want it to end: I strongly believe we do need a set of international rules everyone needs to abide by, especially on matters of war and peace, sovereignty, meddling in other countries affairs, etc. I don’t want a “might is right” world where you can just slaughter thousands of children in total impunity if you happen to be the stronger party.

But I am also a realist and I am afraid that the only way we’ll ever get such a world is if the mightiest states want it to be like this. And I’ve totally lost any confidence in the US to ever do the right thing in that regard. Which is why I look forward to and encourage a world of reduced American influence and power where other wiser powers might succeed where America failed.

If the horrors that are happening in Gaza have any silver lining, it should be this: to impress on the peoples of the world the need to ditch the US’s unhinged “rules-based order” in favor of international law.