E-Paper
Signs of a collapsing rules-based international order
Authored by - Sanjay Turi, doctoral candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
While the recent Delta Force-led theatrical attack on Venezuela (Operation Absolute Resolve) and a massive joint preemptive attack on Iran may have demonstrated the unmatchable military might of the US to the world, it has significantly undermined the rules-based international order, giving an exponential rise to a wide-ranging criticism and a global debate on American imperialism. Amid widespread condemnation from across the world, this unjustified and unlawful attack on fully sovereign nations, along with the kidnapping and killing of the heads of state of Venezuela and Iran, respectively, has ridiculed the very idea of the UN Charter, the most relevant and fundamental document for maintaining peace, stability, and international order.
Winston Churchill, the former British prime minister, once said in the House of Commons that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. The democratic form of government that we practise today has taken hundreds of years to ultimately reach here. This journey to becoming a democracy is so fragile that it has witnessed an unimaginable degree of human exploitation in the past. Although Venezuela and Iran were not democracies at all, the fundamental structure of international politics rests on democratic principles, drawing its powers from the UN Charter. Hence, the violation of this charter will only result in chaos and anarchy, shaking the very idea of international cooperation and further pushing us back to the age of the pre-Westphalian world order.
The Westphalian world order, being the oldest and most fundamental structure of the world order, emphasises the sovereignty of States and is well-rooted in the primacy of national interest. Each sovereign State has the right to use whatever means it deems appropriate, including the possession of nuclear weapons, to serve its national interests. However, considering the degree of devastation and catastrophe that happened during the two world wars, the post-Westphalian or post-World War II order, to be more precise, was given primacy over the Westphalian world order, as it projected to establish a society-centric order in international relations, giving more priority to human values, rights, and dignity. This shift is well reflected in the UN Charter, Article 2(4), which explicitly states that states must refrain from the use of military force against other countries and respect their sovereignty. That is how the collective will of the sovereign States finally led to the establishment of a rules-based international order, culminating in the emergence of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Hence, sovereignty is not a privilege granted by the strong but a right inherent in all nations.
Several countries around the world, such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay, the UK, France, China, Russia, Turkey, Philippines and Mexico, including the UN president Antonio Guterus criticised the US action on Venezuela followed by Iran, saying that this unacceptable, unjustified US-Israel action not only violates the fundamental principles of international law recognised under the UN Charter but also sets a dangerous precedent for peace and regional security in a rules-based international order.
One of the most important ideas of the UN was that laws could have control over power, but things have possibly changed, and it is probably the opposite now, where power can often be seen taming laws. This can often be closely associated with the so-called great powers in today’s scenario, be it the US’s military intervention in Venezuela and Iran, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or China’s aggression in the South China Sea.
When the world is already experiencing wider, uncertain geopolitical turmoil, the Venezuelan crisis and joint attack on Iran by the US and Israel likely play a catalytic role in encouraging countries around the world to acquire nuclear weapons as a tool of deterrence, as it is probably working well in the case of North Korea, India and Pakistan. Hence, instead of non-proliferation and disarmament, the world is very likely to witness a nuclear arms race soon in the future. Nevertheless, this time, the race to acquire nukes will be completely different from the Cold War period. This time, this race will not be driven by any ideology as happened in the past, rather it will be driven by the idea of the existential threat perceived by a sovereign state in the international sphere. Now the question arises, if Venezuela and Iran both had nukes, would the US have acted the same way? In this context, the Venezuela crisis followed by the US-Israel’s joint attack on Iran, will undermine the efforts of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT) and reiterate the idea that nuclear weapons are weapons of peace, as rightly mentioned by one of the leading proponents of offensive realism in international relations, John Mearsheimer: nuclear weapons are a force for peace and stability.
As international relations is the study of the relationships between nations, states, and other actors on the global stage, it is primarily concerned with understanding the dynamics of power and cooperation among these actors. In this context, a French political scientist, Stanley Hoffman, says that it is very natural for the US to be at the heart of global geopolitics, as international relations is purely an American social science discipline. In this context, the famous strategic analyst Brian Katulis suggests forever war is a core part of the US’s foreign policy for its geopolitical gain. As long as there will be war, there will be a quest for peace, and the US, already having a predominant face of the military industrial complex, will be intervening directly or indirectly everywhere there is war. As the US actively follows the decision-making approach of foreign policy, it is naturally not possible for the US to follow an isolationist approach; hence, the non-interference clause mentioned under the US’s national security strategy (NSS) 2025 contradicts itself.
Realism, in contrast to the liberal understanding of International Relations, purely sees this discipline as an arena where states compete for power and security. However, the Marxist understanding of international relations in the recent context of President Trump’s use of hard power to acquire the natural resources of Venezuela and Iran sees this discipline as a reflection of the capitalist mode of production, in which states’ pursuit of profits and resources drives them to exploit and dominate one another. Therefore, in this context, the NSS 2025 is often called by many scholars as Monroe doctrine, a blend of Donald Trump’s version of economic nationalism and the Monroe Doctrine.
Shifting from the philosophical aspect to practical reality, the NSS is focuses on ending the rules-based international order, signalling a revival of Munroe Doctrine, 1813. NSS 2025, while emphasising abandoning international law and the liberal order, proposes to prioritise civilisational pluralism and spheres of influence, focusing more on maintaining a balance of power through offshore balancing strategies without its direct involvement. This doctrine gives greater emphasis on narrowing the core national interest, giving economic nationalism as a status of national security.
The Monroe Doctrine states that the US will not get entangled in any international issues unless they become a threat to its national security. Many scholars argue that the Trump administration’s national security doctrine is a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine. Yet, the US’s ongoing interference and push for the change of regime in various countries all around the globe, recently in Iran, contradicts the very idea of the Monroe Doctrine. However, the new doctrine is nothing but a blend of the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, and the Truman Doctrine from the Cold War era. This much blending and contradiction within the NSS clearly shows how concerned the US is about losing its global hegemonic power against the rising multilateralism. Given the context, it would not be wrong to assume that the recent unlawful action of the US in Venezuela and Iran is probably a sign of the beginning of the collapse of the rules-based international order, which again seems to be paving the way for the decline of US global hegemony.
One of the most important principles of the Monroe Doctrine was that it considered interference in the sphere of influence of the US (North and South America) a national threat to the US. As the Monroe Doctrine was an isolationist policy, the national security doctrine 2025 is a revival of that doctrine with the changes as per the Trump corollary, giving greater focus on countering the US’s economic rival and favouring its own new brand of economic nationalism. As the NSS 2025, theoretically having an isolationist nature in approach, gives greater emphasis on narrowing its core national interest, it also talks about acknowledging freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region and deterrence against large-scale conflict. Hence, here both approaches seem to be contradictory in themselves.
The recent violation of UN Charter Article 2(4) by the Trump administration may have set a dangerous precedent, giving a green signal to China, Russia and other such regional powers that they could also do the same to deal with their neighbours in the near future. Therefore, these unlawful actions by the US are likely to result in a domino effect, paving the way for large-scale global war in the future. It is said that the international order is never a monolith; it is always a patchwork of norms, institutions, and cooperation. Therefore, for the good of humanity, the countries around the world must stay united, adhere to and advocate for maintaining peace, stability and the rules-based order. They should also come forward to raise their collective voices against any unlawful actions by any megalomaniac powers, so as not to allow the UN lose its very foundational relevance.
This article is authored by Sanjay Turi, doctoral candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
