{"id":8367,"date":"2026-01-05T18:56:37","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T13:26:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedialectics.org\/?p=8367"},"modified":"2026-07-15T06:35:15","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T06:35:15","slug":"the-us-breaks-the-rules-based-international-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedialectics.org\/the-us-breaks-the-rules-based-international-order\/","title":{"rendered":"When the Guardian becomes the Breaker: The US stands exposed now, but there will be no shame"},"content":{"rendered":"

The reported US military action against Venezuela\u2014culminating in the capture<\/span><\/span><\/a> of President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro and his transfer to New York for trial\u2014marks a defining rupture in contemporary international politics. It is not merely an act of regime coercion; it is a direct assault on the foundational principles of the post-1945 international order. A sovereign state was attacked, its elected head of government detained, and domestic US law was imposed extraterritorially through force. This single act collapses the moral and legal pretence on which the so-called \u201crules-based international order\u201d has long rested.<\/p>\n

The gravity of this moment lies not only in what the United States has done, but in what it represents: the leading architect and enforcer of international law has chosen to openly violate it. When the guardian becomes the breaker, the system ceases to function as a system<\/strong>. What remains is power, stripped of normative restraint.<\/p>\n

The Death of the Rules-Based Order<\/h3>\n

For decades, the United States and its Western allies have projected themselves as custodians of international law, the UN Charter, and liberal norms such as sovereignty, non-intervention, and territorial integrity. These principles were selectively applied, but at least rhetorically upheld. The Venezuela episode ends even that selective commitment.<\/p>\n

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits<\/span><\/span><\/a> the use of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state. The forcible capture of a sitting president violates not only this provision but also basic diplomatic and legal conventions. There is no credible international mandate, no UN Security Council authorisation, and no universally accepted legal framework that justifies such an action.<\/p>\n

When the US undermines these norms, it does more than weaken international law\u2014it delegitimises it. Other states are no longer morally or politically compelled to respect rules that even their creators discard when inconvenient.<\/p>\n

For Further Reading : Can the US legally Strike Iran ?<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

From Order to Anarchy<\/h3>\n

This incident reinforces a structural shift already underway: the transition from a rule-governed international order to a condition approaching anarchy, as described in classical realist theory. In such a system, power\u2014not law\u2014becomes the ultimate arbiter.<\/p>\n

International politics is increasingly characterised by powerful states openly breaking rules they once championed. The message is unambiguous: laws and norms are instruments, not constraints. They are observed when they serve national interest and abandoned when they do not.
\nThis is not an accidental breakdown. It is a conscious recalibration by declining powers, particularly the US, which finds existing norms inadequate to preserve its primacy in an increasingly multipolar world.<\/p>\n

Great Power Behaviour<\/h3>\n

Traditional theories define great powers by measurable attributes\u2014population, military strength, economic capacity, technological advancement, and soft power. These remain relevant, but they are no longer sufficient.<\/p>\n

Two additional criteria now define great power status in practice:<\/p>\n