The phrase “international rules-based order” has long been a fixture in global politics.
Western leaders often use it to describe a framework of rules, norms and institutions designed to guide state behavior. Advocates argue that this framework has provided the foundation for decades of stability and prosperity, while critics question its fairness and relevance in today’s multipolar world.
But what exactly is the international rules-based order, when did it come about, and why do people increasingly hear about challenges to it today?
The birth of a universal vision
The rules-based international order, initially known as the “liberal international order,” emerged from the devastation of World War II. The vision was ambitious and universal: to create a global system based on liberal democratic values, market capitalism and multilateral cooperation.
At its core, however, this project was driven by the United States, which saw itself as the unmatched leader of the new order.
The idea was to replace the chaos of great power politics and shifting alliances with a predictable world governed by shared rules and norms.
Central to this vision was the establishment of institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions, alongside widely accepted norms and formalized rules, aimed to promote political cooperation, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and economic recovery for countries damaged by war.
However, the vision of a truly universal liberal international order quickly unraveled. As the Cold War set in, the world split into two competing blocs. The Western bloc, led by the United States, adhered to the principles of the liberal international order.
Meanwhile, the Soviet-led communist bloc established a parallel system with its own norms, rules and institutions. The Warsaw Pact provided military alignment, while the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance managed economic cooperation. The communist bloc emphasized state-led economic planning and single-party rule, rejecting the liberal order’s emphasis on democracy and free markets.
Emerging cracks
When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the liberal international order appeared to have triumphed. The United States became the world’s sole superpower, and many former communist states integrated into Western institutions. For a brief period, the order’s universal vision seemed within reach.
By the 1990s and early 2000s, however, new cracks began to appear.
NATO expansion, the creation of the World Trade Organization and greater emphasis on human rights through institutions such as the International Criminal Court all closely aligned with Western liberal values. The spread of these norms and the institutions enforcing them appeared, to many outside the West, as Western ideology dressed up as universal principles.
In response to mounting criticism, Western leaders began using the term rules-based international order instead of liberal international order. This shift aimed to emphasize procedural fairness – rules that all states, in theory, had agreed upon – rather than a system explicitly rooted in liberal ideological commitments. The focus moved from promoting specific liberal norms to maintaining stability and predictability.
New challenges to the status quo
China’s rise has brought these tensions into sharp relief. While China participates in many institutions underpinning the rules-based international order, it also seeks to reshape them.
The Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank illustrate Beijing’s efforts to establish alternative frameworks more aligned with its interests. These initiatives challenge existing rules and norms by offering new institutional pathways for economic and political influence.
Meanwhile, Russia’s actions in Ukraine – especially the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2022 invasion – challenge the order’s core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. link
Western inconsistencies have long undermined the credibility of the rules-based order. The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, widely criticized for bypassing international norms and institutions, exemplified a selective application of the rules. This double standard extends toward Washington’s selective engagement with international legal bodies and its inconsistent approach to sovereignty and intervention.
An uncertain future
Supporters argue that the rules-based order remains vital for addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics and nuclear proliferation.
However, ambiguity surrounds what these “rules” actually entail, which norms are genuinely universal, and who enforces them.
This lack of clarity, coupled with shifting global power dynamics, complicates efforts to sustain the system.
The future of the rules-based international order is uncertain. The shift from “liberal” to “rules-based” reflected an ongoing struggle to adapt a complex web of rules, norms and institutions to a rapidly changing international environment.
Whether it evolves further, splinters or endures as is will depend on how well it balances fairness, inclusivity and stability in an increasingly multipolar world.
Andrew Latham is Professor of Political Science, Macalester College, Minnesota.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
12 Comments
Login to comment
HopeSpringsEternal
The global order is always in flux, clearly technology is fundamentally changing this global order and country 'culture' rapidly loses any remaining relevance.
Tech. is making Global Standardization Possible, meaning far more unified transparent global order vs. the exact opposite, that's resulted in lots of corrupt inefficient 'institutional' behavior.
Just look at what's happening with the US Govt. due to the DLT's DOGE Digital Audits - hugely $consequential
mikeylikesit
This article is correct that America is at the center of the “rules-based international order.” It is, at its core, a reinvention of global imperium. The empire-that-never died can be traced back at least to the Roman Empire.
In the American incarnation, all nations must acquiesce to a form of economic vassalization. You must bow to the dollar and use it exclusively for intentional trade. You must not upset the flow of trade, especially to the United States. Crossing these lines earns economic isolation via harsh sanctions. Crossing the lines egregiously as a small, less-developed nation may also bring bombs on your head and troops at your door in a regime-change effort.
It is an empire of lies, where “liberal” does not mean free, where “rules” are capriciously enforced, where “democracy” means doing as elites demand.
Hello Kitty 321
What is the rules-based order?
It is whatever America says it is. Although the rules can be changed whenever it suits America to do so.
M3M3M3
The term 'rules-based international order', or 'rules-based order', doesn't appear anywhere until the early 2000s (check Google ngram if you think otherwise). I remember the origins very clearly. It was an obscurantist term coined by the Bush administration as an alternative to saying international law, since the US had at that point become one of the most persistent violators of international law in the 'global war on terror'.
The author's attempt to paint an alternative history linked to liberalism and democracy is so obviously wrong and bizarre.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Well it is clearly not the "invade thy neighbor" order practiced by some.
HopeSpringsEternal
Part of this rules-based order as expressed in the UN charter, does allow countries to legally assist those under attack, whether bodily/violence, human rights, or legally with regards to property or voting rights etc.
We saw this on full display with the partitioning of Yugoslavia decades ago and again now in Ukraine.
mikeylikesit
And thus it’s an order based on lies. The U.S. is the primary proponent of a rules-based order, and, with NATO, its main enforcer. No other country has invaded so many other countries in recent decades as the U.S. has. In this international world of inversions, we have to fight constant, unending wars to achieve peace.
1glenn
Putin has worked very hard to destroy the rules based order, and has instituted a reign of terror inside Russia. He acts like a protege of Stalin, without the pretense of furthering communism.
Primusinter
What do you know about terror inside Russia?
TaiwanIsNotChina
But not neighbors and not for keeps.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Claiming that blowing up people and countries is assisting them could only come from the mind of the apologist.
deanzaZZR
It's the thin facade of fading Western dominance once international law was completely discarded by Baby Bush, adaptable by time and situation but always weaponized against China, Russia, Iran and the Global South as needed.
Wasn't that Congressional Address by mass murderer Netanyahu amazing? International rules-based order, y'all.