Signs of a collapsing rules-based international order

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said in the House of Commons that apart from all the other forms that have been tried from time to time, democracy is the worst form of government. The democratic form of government we use today took hundreds of years to finally arrive here. This journey to becoming a democracy is so delicate that it has seen unimaginable degrees of human exploitation in the past. Although Venezuela and Iran were not at all democratic, the basic structure of international politics rests on democratic principles, deriving its powers from the UN Charter. Therefore, violation of this Charter will only result in anarchy and disorder, which will shake the idea of ​​international cooperation and push us back to the era of the pre-Westphalian world order.

The Westphalian world order, being the oldest and most fundamental structure of the world order, emphasizes the sovereignty of states and is well-rooted in the primacy of national interest. Every sovereign state has the right to use whatever means it deems appropriate, including the possession of nuclear weapons, to pursue its national interests. However, taking into account the degree of devastation and devastation caused during the two World Wars, the Post-Westphalian or post-World War II order, more precisely, was given primacy over the Westphalian world order, as it anticipated establishing a society-centered order in international relations, in which human values, rights and dignity were given greater priority. This shift is well reflected in the UN Charter, Article 2(4), which clearly states that states should refrain from the use of military force against other states and respect their sovereignty. Thus the collective will of sovereign states ultimately established a rules-based international order, culminating in the emergence of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. Therefore, sovereignty is not a privilege granted by the stronger, but a right inherent in all nations.

Several countries around the world, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain and Uruguay, UK, France, China, Russia, Turkey, Philippines and Mexico, including UN President Antonio Guterres, criticized the US action on Venezuela after Iran, saying that this unacceptable, unjustified US-Israel action not only violates the basic principles of international law recognized under the UN Charter, but is a threat to peace and regional security in the rules-based international order. It also sets a dangerous precedent.

One of the most important ideas of the United Nations was that laws could control power, but things have probably changed, and now it is probably the opposite, where power can often be seen to control laws. This can often be closely linked with the so-called great powers in today’s scenario, be it the US military intervention in Venezuela and Iran, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or China’s aggression in the South China Sea.

At a time when the world is already facing widespread, uncertain geopolitical turmoil, the Venezuela crisis and the joint attack on Iran by the US and Israel are likely to play a catalytic role in encouraging countries around the world to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent tool, as it is probably working well in the case of North Korea, India and Pakistan. Therefore, the future world is likely to see a nuclear arms race rather than nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Nevertheless, this time the race to acquire nuclear weapons will be completely different from the Cold War era. This time the race will not be driven by any ideology as it has been in the past, but rather by the idea of ​​existential threat faced by a sovereign state in the international arena. Now the question arises that if both Venezuela and Iran had nuclear weapons, would America have also taken similar action? In this context, the Venezuelan crisis, following the US-Israel joint attack on Iran, will undermine nuclear weapons non-proliferation (NPT) efforts and reiterate the idea that nuclear weapons are weapons of peace, as John Mearsheimer, one of the leading proponents of offensive realism in international relations, has rightly noted: Nuclear weapons are a force for peace and stability.

Since international relations is the study of relationships between nations, states, and other actors on the global stage, it is primarily concerned with understanding the dynamics of power and cooperation between these actors. In this context, Stanley Hoffmann, a French political scientist, says that it is very natural for the US to be at the center of global geopolitics, since international relations is entirely an American social science discipline. In this context, renowned strategic analyst Brian Catulis suggests that forever war for its geopolitical advantage is a core part of America’s foreign policy. As long as there is war, there will be a search for peace, and America, which already has the dominant face of the military industrial complex, will intervene directly or indirectly if there is war everywhere. Since the US actively adheres to the foreign policy decision-making approach, it is naturally not possible for the US to adhere to the isolationist approach; Therefore, the non-intervention clause mentioned under the US National Security Strategy (NSS) 2025 is contradictory in itself.

Realism, in contrast to the liberal understanding of international relations, sees the discipline purely as an arena where states compete for power and security. However, in the recent context of President Trump’s use of coercive power to acquire the natural resources of Venezuela and Iran, Marxist understandings of international relations see this discipline as a reflection of the capitalist mode of production, in which states’ pursuit of profits and resources leads them to exploit and dominate one another. Therefore, in this context, NSS 2025 is often called the Monroe Doctrine by many scholars, which is a blend of Donald Trump’s version of economic nationalism and the Monroe Doctrine.

Moving from the philosophical aspect to practical reality, the NSS focuses on dismantling the rules-based international order, implying a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, 1813. NSS 2025, while emphasizing the abandonment of international law and the liberal order, proposes to give priority to civilizational pluralism and spheres of influence, focusing more on maintaining the balance of power through offshore balancing strategies without its direct involvement. This theory places more emphasis on limiting the basic national interest while giving the status of national security to economic nationalism.

The Monroe Doctrine states that the United States will not get involved in any international issues unless they threaten its national security. Many scholars argue that the Trump administration’s national security doctrine is a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine. Yet, America’s continued interference and pressure for regime change in various countries around the world, most recently in Iran, is contrary to the idea of ​​the Monroe Doctrine. However, the new doctrine is nothing but a mixture of the Cold War era Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt Corollary, and Truman Doctrine. This much mix-up and contradiction within the NSS clearly shows how worried the US is about losing its global hegemonic power against growing multilateralism. Given the context, it would not be wrong to assume that the recent illegal actions of the US in Venezuela and Iran possibly signal 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 US sphere of influence (North and South America) as a national threat to the US. Since the Monroe Doctrine was an isolationist policy, the National Security Doctrine 2025 is a revival of that doctrine with changes according to the Trump outcome, focusing more on countering America’s economic rival and favoring his new brand of economic nationalism. Since NSS 2025, while theoretically isolationist in nature, places greater emphasis on limiting its core national interest, it also calls for accepting freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region and deterrence against large-scale conflict. Therefore, both the viewpoints here seem contradictory in themselves.

The recent violation of UN Charter Article 2(4) by the Trump administration has set a dangerous precedent, giving a green signal to China, Russia and other such regional powers to do the same to deal with their neighbors in the near future. Therefore, these illegal actions by the US are likely to lead to a large-scale global war in the future. It is said that the international system is never isolated; It is always a mix of norms, institutions and cooperation. Therefore, for the well-being of humanity, countries around the world must remain united, advocating for maintaining peace, stability and rules-based order. They should come forward to raise their collective voice against any unlawful action by any superpower, so as to prevent the United Nations from losing its fundamental relevance.

This article is written by Sanjay Turi, Doctoral Candidate, Center for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.