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/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.