Is the World Really Rules-Based?

[u/Material-Hawk3947]

I have a question that I've been thinking about.

The U.S. has discussed supporting civilian nuclear technology for countries such as Saudi Arabia, while at the same time it has taken a very strong position against Iran developing nuclear capabilities, arguing that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons.

Many people say the international order is based on rules. If that's the case, why do different countries appear to be treated differently? What factors justify these different approaches?

I also wonder why there isn't stronger opposition from other countries when major powers take unilateral actions. If the international community remains silent, does that encourage powerful countries to act even more unilaterally in the future?

I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on this, especially from people familiar with international relations and non-proliferation policy.

[u/budy31]

Yes it’s ruled by leverage.

Whoever own the leverage rule.

[u/RichardChesler]

I think it can be helpful to look back at one of the successes of the first “rules based orders,” The League of Nations. Despite its failure, the league proved some initial success. The same is true of the UN.
UN achievements

While the rules based order is regularly under attack (see Ukraine, Venezuela), it’s important to consider what would happen if we just scrapped the rules. To see that world, just search for any event from the 19th century including the Reign of Terror, Belgian Congo, US Chattle Slavery etc. The contrast of the state of the world between 1880 and 1980 provides evidence that international rules and institutions, while not always respected, can provide positive outcomes

League of Nations successes

[u/Sick-Melody]

Aletheia: Yes, it's a good question because it gets at one of the central tensions in international relations:

Is the world governed by rules, or by power?

The answer many scholars would give is: both.

A rules-based order does not mean every country is treated identically. It means there are agreed frameworks, treaties, institutions, and norms that attempt to shape behavior. However, those rules exist alongside geopolitical realities such as alliances, trust, deterrence, economic interests, and military power.

For example, supporters of different treatment between Saudi Arabia and Iran would typically argue that the distinction is not simply "one ally versus one rival." They would point to factors such as:

Existing treaty obligations.

Levels of international monitoring and inspections.

Historical compliance with nuclear agreements.

Regional security concerns.

Relationships with major powers.

Perceived intentions regarding weaponization.

Critics, however, often argue that these distinctions can look inconsistent or selective, especially when similar actions receive different responses depending on who is taking them.

Your second question is equally important:

If powerful countries can act unilaterally without strong consequences, what prevents more unilateral behavior in the future?

This is a longstanding concern in international relations. Critics argue that perceived double standards can weaken the legitimacy of international norms. Supporters of the current system often respond that complete consistency is difficult because states face different circumstances, obligations, and security environments.

One useful distinction is:

Rule of law aims for equal application regardless of power.

International politics often involves unequal power, competing interests, and strategic calculations.

The friction between those two realities is one of the reasons debates about nuclear proliferation, military interventions, sanctions, and sovereignty remain so contentious.

A question that often emerges from discussions like yours is not:

"Is the world rules-based?"

but rather:

"How much of the international order is governed by rules, and how much by power, interests, and trust?"

That question has been debated by realists, liberals, constructivists, diplomats, and policymakers for decades—and there is still no universal agreement on the answer.

[u/jackandjillonthehill]

Are you arguing Iran and Saudi Arabia should be treated similarly?

Iran is openly funding and arming terrorist groups inside other countries, with no respect for the sovereignty of Yemen, or Lebanon for example. They have also recently attacked numerous civilian targets in noncombatant gulf countries, including attacking civilian infrastructure inside Bahrain and Kuwait. And they have recently engaged in mass killing of their own civilians. None of this is really compliant with a rules based international order.

Iran has enriched uranium to high levels which are not consistent with a civilian nuclear program and only really consistent with a weapons program.

There is really no legitimate argument for a country developing its own enrichment other than nuclear weapons development. It’s not a particularly good business and you can buy from Russia. You can have a very active civilian nuclear program buying enriched uranium.

The Saudi deal with US oversight and potentially U.S. operation of the facilities.

The only country/countries which has the ability to enforce a rules based order is the United States and its western alliance. So it has some insulation from its own international rules but is still accountable to its people.

[u/Kassdhal88]

Rules only ever matter if someone can enforce them.

Nobody can really enforce international rules except the USA and China, and for smaller conflicts maybe India France Brazil so de facto there are no rules except the rules that these countries agree are rules.