“Rules-Based” Is a Discursive Trap of the US and the West

The frequent use of the phrase “rules-based international order” by leaders of the United States and some Western countries is not a genuine commitment to safeguarding international rules; rather, it carries deep value-laden connotations and refined, self-serving calculations of interests.

美国和西方一些国家的领导人频繁使用“基于规则的国际秩序”，并非真正担当国际规则的守护者，实则有深厚的价值观意涵和精致自私的利害考虑。

Since modern times, Western countries, relying on the power advantages accumulated through the early Industrial Revolution, have carried out “asymmetric strikes” [1]1 “Asymmetric strikes” (降维打击) is a term from Chinese internet culture, originally from science fiction, referring to an attack using a higher dimension of technology or capability that the opponent cannot counter, implying overwhelming superiority. against various parts of the globe—whether through colonial occupation or indirect rule—ultimately incorporating the entire world step by step into a Western-dominated international system. From the Peace of Westphalia in the 17th century, to the Concert of Vienna and the Berlin Conference system in the 19th century, and then to the Versailles-Washington system and the Yalta system in the 20th century, the international order established under Western leadership has exhibited a distinct “power-based” character. Major powers divided spheres of influence according to their relative strength, international politics was rife with the “law of the jungle” where the strong preyed on the weak, and war became a customary and even supposedly “legitimate” means of settling disputes.

近现代以来，西方国家凭借率先工业革命积累的力量优势，对全球各地实行“降维打击”，或是殖民占领，或是间接统治，终将整个世界逐步纳入西方主导的国际体系。从17世纪的威斯特伐利亚体系，到19世纪的维也纳体系、柏林体系，再到20世纪的凡尔赛—华盛顿体系、雅尔塔体系，西方国家主导建立的国际秩序具有明显的“基于实力”特征。大国依据实力对比划分势力范围，国际政治盛行弱肉强食的“丛林法则”，战争成为惯用的乃至被认为是“合法的”解决分歧的手段。

Human society is always developing and progressing. With the acceleration and upgrading of economic globalization, interactions among different countries and nations have increased, and the destructive effects of war have grown. The combined force of positive and negative factors has gradually pushed the international community to establish some rules and institutions that regulate state behavior. After the end of World War II, the international system centered on the United Nations was gradually established, becoming the main institutional platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation among countries. Although this has not been sufficient to change the decisive influence of the “power-based” international order, it has nonetheless greatly expanded the boundaries of the international order, enriched its content, and shone with the light of human civilization.

人类社会总是在发展进步。伴随经济全球化的提速升级，不同国家、民族交往增多，战争破坏作用增大，正反两方面合力推动国际社会逐渐建立起一些规范国家行为的规则、制度。二战结束以后，以联合国为核心的国际体系逐步建立，成为推动各国对话合作的国际制度主平台。这些虽然不足以改变国际秩序“基于实力”的决定性影响，但还是极大拓展了国际秩序的边界，丰富了国际秩序的内容，闪耀着人类文明之光。

After the end of the Cold War, the United States and Western countries were once immersed in the myth of the “end of history,” [2]2 “End of history” refers to Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 thesis that the end of the Cold War marked the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy. plotting to establish a so-called “new world order.” Its core essence was to use the “Washington Consensus,” [3]3 The Washington Consensus is a set of neoliberal economic policy prescriptions (e.g., fiscal discipline, trade liberalization, privatization) promoted by Washington-based institutions in the 1990s. based on free markets and democratic politics, as a template and push this set of rules worldwide. At that time, Western strategic elites were quite confident about using rules to change other countries. The phrase “rules-based international order” gradually became popular and evolved into a mainstream discourse in the United States and other Western countries. From the very beginning, “rules-based” specifically referred to rules based on Western-approved political and economic norms. Although it sounds more pleasant and euphemistic than “power-based,” it is still fundamentally supported by the power superiority of the West.

冷战结束后，美国和西方国家一度沉浸在“历史的终结”神话之中，图谋建立所谓“世界新秩序”，其核心要义即是以自由市场、民主政治为标准的“华盛顿共识”为模板，将此套规则推向全世界。彼时的西方战略精英，对于使用规则改变他国颇具信心，“基于规则的国际秩序”逐渐流行开来，成为美国等西方国家的主流话语。从一开始，“基于规则”都是特指基于西方认可的政治经济规则，虽然较之“基于实力”显得悦耳动听、含蓄委婉，但其背后仍然是以西方的实力优势为根本支撑。

Unfortunately, “things turned out contrary to their wishes.” [4]4 “Things turned out contrary to their wishes” (事与愿违) is a Chinese four-character idiom meaning events develop in a way opposite to what was hoped for. Over the more than thirty years since the end of the Cold War, the world political and economic landscape has undergone historic changes, the core of which is the dispersal and transfer of international power from the West and the North to the East and the South. The rise of the East and the decline of the West, the rise of the South and the decline of the North, are long-term development trends. Faced with the growing rise of developing countries, the United States and its core allies are extremely reluctant to cede or share power and resources. The difficulty in advancing quota reforms in institutions like the International Monetary Fund is a clear example.

可惜“事与愿违”。冷战结束30多年来，世界政治经济格局又发生了历史性巨变，其核心是国际权力从西方、北方向东方、南方流散转移。东升西降、南升北降是长时段的发展趋势，面对广大发展中国家的日益崛起，美国及其核心盟友愿意让渡或分享的权力和资源极其有限，国际货币基金组织等机构的份额改革难以推进可见一斑。

International law consists of behavioral norms universally recognized and accepted by all countries, possessing clear international legitimacy and legality. China and many other countries advocate adhering to international rules based on international law—these are the genuine international rules. Yet the United States and some other Western countries set this aside and instead talk extensively about a “rules-based international order.” Why?

国际法是各国普遍认可、接受的行为准则，具有明显的国际合法性和正当性，中国等很多国家都倡导坚持以国际法为基础的国际规则，这才是真正的国际规则。美国等一些西方国家却舍此不用，大谈“基于规则的国际秩序”，为什么？

Compared to international law, the United States deliberately uses the phrase “rules-based,” whose meaning is not clearly defined. This very ambiguity of interpretation precisely serves America’s instrumental needs. Generally speaking, the “rules-based international order” certainly includes international law, such as the UN Charter and its purposes and principles, multilateral treaties, and international rules. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and others have acknowledged this in public statements, and the July 2023 NATO Summit communiqué also declared “adherence to international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and commitment to upholding the rules-based international order.” However, this only means that in specific circumstances, the United States and other Western countries support the “international law” they can manipulate, while overall they still emphasize that international law is subordinate to the “rules-based international order,” rather than advocating an “international order based on international law.” Moreover, “rules” are not the relatively neutral and impartial international law, but specifically refer to international rules that align with U.S. interests and value preferences. For a long time previously, this was the liberal international order based on the “Washington Consensus,” emphasizing free markets, democratic politics, and the protection of human rights. In recent years, the United States has reinterpreted and elaborated on this based on changing circumstances, proposing a so-called “New Washington Consensus,” [5]5 The “New Washington Consensus” is a term used by some analysts to describe a shift in U.S. economic policy under the Biden administration toward industrial policy, state intervention, and strategic competition with China. emphasizing government intervention in markets, new industrial policies, as well as democratic politics and the protection of human rights. It is evident that America’s “rules” are not immutable; they follow pragmatism. When using the phrase “rules-based international order,” the United States enjoys great flexibility and autonomy.

相比国际法，美国刻意使用“基于规则”这种意涵并不明晰的话语，解释的模糊性恰恰符合美国的工具性需要。一般而言，“基于规则的国际秩序”当然包括国际法，诸如《联合国宪章》及其宗旨原则、多边条约和国际规则等，美国国务卿布林肯等人在公开讲话中承认了这一点，2023年7月北约峰会联合公报也宣称“恪守国际法和《联合国宪章》的宗旨原则，致力于维护基于规则的国际秩序”。但这只是说在具体情形下，美国等西方国家支持其可以操纵的“国际法”，整体上仍然强调国际法从属于“基于规则的国际秩序”，而不是主张“基于国际法的国际秩序”。不仅如此，“规则”并不是相对中性中立的国际法，而是特指符合美国利益和价值观偏好的国际规则。此前很长一段时间是以“华盛顿共识”为标准的自由主义国际秩序，强调自由市场、民主政治、保护人权等；近年来美国又根据形势变化对其阐释发挥，提出所谓“新华盛顿共识”，强调政府干预市场、新型产业政策以及民主政治、保护人权等。可见，美国的“规则”并非一成不变，遵循的是实用主义，在使用“基于规则的国际秩序”时，拥有很大的灵活性和自主性。

If “rules” were replaced with international law, the United States would instead be constrained, and it is not a “model student” in complying with international law anyway. First, the United States is not a party to several important multilateral treaties and is not qualified to invoke international law on those matters. Second, many of America’s official positions and policy measures contradict generally accepted principles of international law. Third, the United States “tailors” international law in the name of being “rules-based.” The United States habitually uses the “rules-based international order” to claim legitimacy, labeling its own actions and those of its allies as “complying with the rules” and “defending the rules.” In short, the “rules-based international order” is essentially a hegemonic order concept advocated by the United States and other Western countries. They “use international law and international rules when they are beneficial, and discard them when they are not,” making their own interests the sole criterion.

如果将“规则”替换成国际法，美国反而受限，且其本来就不是遵守国际法的“模范生”。其一，美国不是若干重要多边条约的缔约国，没资格拿国际法说事。其二，美国很多的官方主张、政策举措与通用的国际法原则相悖。其三，美国以“基于规则”为名对国际法进行“裁剪”。美国惯用“基于规则的国际秩序”标榜合法性，将自身以及盟友的行为称为“符合规则”“捍卫规则”。总之，“基于规则的国际秩序”实质是美国等西方国家倡导的霸权秩序观，它们对国际法和国际规则“合则用，不合则弃”，完全是以自身利益为取舍。

The United States and other Western countries frequently claim to uphold the “rules-based international order,” using this to pressure other countries, impose their own will and standards on others, and replace universally accepted international law with the “gang rules” [6]6 “Gang rules” (帮规) is a Chinese term for the internal regulations of a secret society or gang, used here pejoratively to imply illegitimate, self-serving rules. of a few countries. This is a replica of power politics. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once commented that Western countries advocate a “Western-centric, rules-based international order as a substitute for international law,” with the aim of “bypassing international law and replacing it.” A research report from Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) in the UK also stated that America’s various violations of international law cast a “long shadow” over its proclaimed “rules-based international order.”

美国等西方国家动辄声称维护“基于规则的国际秩序”，并以此向别国施压，把自己的意志和标准强加于人，用少数国家的“帮规”取代普遍接受的国际法则，是强权政治的翻版。俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫曾评价说，西方国家主张“以西方为中心、基于规则的国际秩序作为国际法的替代品”，其目的是“绕过国际法、取代国际法”。英国皇家国际事务研究所的研究报告也称，美国违反国际法的种种行为，对其宣称“基于规则的国际秩序”投下了“长长的阴影”。

Each country has its own adherence and characteristics in applying international law, but this does not harm the universality of international law. On the contrary, the United States and other Western countries, by advocating a “rules-based international order” and replacing clear international law with vague “rules,” undermine the unity and authority of international law, effectively hollowing out its value foundation and leaving it subject to U.S. domination. From this perspective, the United States is truly the “number one destroyer” of international rules.

各国在适用国际法方面各有依归、各有特点，但这不会伤害国际法的普遍性。反倒是美国等西方国家主张“基于规则的国际秩序”，以模糊的“规则”代替了明确的国际法，破坏了国际法的统一性和权威性，实际掏空了国际法的价值基础，使之任由美国主导。从这个角度讲，美国才真正是国际规则的“头号破坏者”。

The United States also uses the discourse of “rules” to win over allies and attack dissidents, engaging in the hegemonic, bullying, and domineering practice of “those who follow me prosper, those who oppose me perish.” [7]7 “Those who follow me prosper, those who oppose me perish” (顺我者昌，逆我者亡) is a Chinese idiom describing an autocratic or hegemonic attitude of demanding absolute obedience. The United States divides friends from foes and rejects outsiders based on whether they accept and comply with its “rules,” labeling China and Russia as “revisionist” and “challengers to the order.” This approach undermines the value basis for dialogue among major powers on the international order and is unhelpful for major powers to reach consensus through cooperation and carry out global governance.

美国还以“规则”话语拉拢盟友、打击异己，搞“顺我者昌，逆我者亡”的霸道霸凌霸权。美国以是否认同和遵守其“规则”划分敌友、拒斥异类，将中俄称为“修正主义”“秩序挑战者”，这种做派破坏了主要大国之间关于国际秩序开展对话的价值基础，无益于大国合作达成共识，开展全球治理。

China is a staunch defender of the international order, firmly upholding an international order based on international law. International rules should be based on international law, formulated by all countries together, and should not be the patent or privilege of a few countries. International rules should reflect the value orientation of public goods and should not be biased toward the interests of a single country or a group of countries. International rules should be observed by all countries, with no room for exceptionalism or double standards. These principles embody genuine multilateralism, normatively negate the control of international rules by a few powerful countries, and should serve as the premise and foundation for “order dialogue” among all countries.

中国是国际秩序的坚定维护者，坚定维护以国际法为基础的国际秩序。国际规则应以国际法为基础，由大家一起制定，不是少数国家的专利和特权；国际规则应体现公共产品价值取向，不能偏向某个国家或某些国家集团利益；国际规则应由各国共同遵守，不能有例外主义和双重标准。这些原则体现了真正的多边主义，从规范的意义上否定了少数强国对国际规则的控制权，应当成为各国“秩序对话”的前提和基础。

Only by returning to an international order based on international law, with all parties upholding the concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, promoting the reform and innovation of international law, and steering the international order toward a more just and reasonable direction, can the world achieve lasting peace, development, security, and progress.

只有回归以国际法为基础的国际秩序，各方秉持共商共建共享的理念，推动国际法革故鼎新，推动国际秩序朝着更加公正合理的方向发展，世界才能迎来持久和平、发展、安全、进步。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗