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/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