‘Rules-Based International Order’ in Western Academic Literature

Abstract

The concept of the ‘rules-based international order’ has been actively promoted in recent years within the official and expert discourse of the United States and its allies as a full-fledged alternative to the traditional principles of international relations, i.e. state sovereignty and non-interference. Predictably, this narrative has encountered severe criticism from the leading states of the non-Western world, namely, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, which consistently advocate the universally recognized norms of international law guided by principles enshrined in the UN Charter. At the same time, there is by no means a consensus in Western academic literature regarding the ‘rules-based order,’ let alone its full acceptance. In this context, this article identifies the main approaches toward the ‘rules-based order’ conceptualization in contemporary international studies abroad. The author shows that while its advocates resort to rather utopian arguments, claiming that it implies collective decision-making and the establishment of an open and sound universal system through which all states and peoples could peacefully and mutually resolve emerging disputes, the arguments of its critics appear more empirically grounded. Primarily, these critics rightly point to the absence of a universal consensus regarding the content of the ‘rules’ and their compliance procedures, which creates unlimited opportunities for their selective and politically biased application. In this context, the author concludes that a critical analysis of the ‘rules-based order’ concept cannot be reduced to examining its theoretical and legal aspects but should also necessarily include an analysis of its specific political connotations and features of application in international relations.