The concept of a rules-based international order and its adherence by global powers has been a subject of ongoing debate. This analysis explores the varying degrees to which major nations comply with international norms and the implications for smaller states and international bodies like the European Union.
Adherence to International Law by Permanent Security Council Members
Recent actions, such as the U.S. arrest of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, which involved military force, have prompted discussions in Europe regarding the rules-based international order. Among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom and France are generally perceived by some European observers as more consistently adhering to this order.
Conversely, other permanent members have demonstrated different approaches:
- Russia's military actions in Ukraine have been widely cited as violations of international law.
- China's conduct in the South China Sea has also been identified as challenging established international legal frameworks.
- The U.S. arrest of Maduro likewise faces scrutiny concerning its alignment with international law.
Overall, a majority of the permanent Security Council members have shown varying levels of strict adherence to the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
Justifications for International Actions
Historically, the conditional adherence of the United States, Russia, and China to international order principles has been observed, with deviations often justified differently. The U.S. frequently uses language related to human rights, responsibility, and international order to legitimize its actions. In contrast, Russia and China increasingly reference spheres of influence, historical entitlement, and civilizational particularities.
Examples of past actions include:
- Russia and the former Soviet Union have a history of military interventions in countries within their perceived spheres of influence.
- China's adherence to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules has been a recurring point of discussion during its 25-year membership.
- The U.S. has conducted numerous military operations since World War II without explicit UN mandates.
The Nature of the Rules-Based International Order
From one perspective, the 'rules-based international order' is largely considered a theoretical construct, particularly favored in rhetorical devotion by smaller and medium-sized European states and institutions like the EU. While norms and rules are acknowledged as significant, it is observed that they tend to discipline weaker states more effectively than they constrain stronger ones.
Norms can serve to establish ideals, providing a basis for legitimate criticism when violations occur and potentially inducing public accountability. European countries and the EU often profess commitment to this order, which can be seen as beneficial for international discourse.
However, a challenge arises if there is a belief that the world is consistently governed by these rules and that violations are always sanctioned. The author asserts that power dynamics, rather than strict adherence to rules, fundamentally govern world affairs. Great powers are seen to comply with rules based on self-interest, with compliance diminishing when interests diverge. Consequently, rules can become ineffective, and the influence of powerful states prevails.
Implications for Europe
Given this view of international dynamics, the author argues that the U.S. arrest of Maduro, while potentially challenging international law, is consistent with a historical pattern where power supersedes rules. The author suggests that the novelty lies not in the actions themselves, but in the increasing transparency with which great powers act on their interests without necessarily concealing their selective adherence to international norms.
In an environment where strong powers openly prioritize interest and power, the author suggests that weaker actors must either build their own power, align with existing power structures, or risk irrelevance. Appeals to unenforced rules, protests without sanctioning capacity, and moral outrage without material means are deemed ineffective.
For Europe, the author concludes that the critical question is not merely whether the rules-based international order has been violated, but rather what instruments of power (military, economic, strategic) Europe possesses and the political will to utilize them. Without this, Europe risks speaking the language of norms in a world that operates on the language of power, potentially without significant impact.