Does the US follow these rules in terms of action in places like Syria (almost certainly CIA providing weapons) Libya, Iraq, Vietnam etc? I'm actually kind of curious to see how the US measures up on these rules.
I thought the US had an interest in things like regime change rather than some of the stability focuses others have had.
Of course the US follows the rules, by definition.
The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it".
Anyway, a rules-based international order already exists. It's called the UN charter, but that's not what they mean.
> The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it".
Sarcasm and hyperbole are fun, but can be misleading. The US-led rules-based international order certainly doesn't always follow the rules, and the US can be a major violator, but the rules have great influence and power. Generally, the US considers it in its interest to have an internation order based on rules, not on military power. But lacking a soveriegn international government, the US's military power has underwritten those rules since WWII.
The UN charter is one part of the rules, but international law is based on many institutions and agreements. Here's a great source with leading experts (e.g., top lawyers from the State Department and White House) for anyone who wants to know about it:
Where are the rules? You're all over this thread taking about RBIO and you haven't cited any rules. Not a single one. Where is it written? May I read a list of your rules?
I thought the US had an interest in things like regime change rather than some of the stability focuses others have had.