Reference News Network, January 30**, the Royal Institute of International Studies**, published an article on January 25 entitled "Will the Gaza War Become a Breaking Point in the Rules-Based International Order?" The author is Renard Mansour, senior fellow in the Institute's Middle East and North Africa Studies Program and director of the Iraq Initiative. The full text is excerpted below:
The so-called "rules-based international order" is also being put on trial as the International Court of Justice confirms its preliminary jurisdiction to call for an investigation into Israel's genocide in Gaza.
This set of global rules, norms and institutions, of which the International Court of Justice itself is a member, was created by the victors of World War II to govern relations between States on the basis of common principles of human rights and international law. The aim is to prevent conflict and to ensure that the great ** or anything like terror that happened in Europe does not happen again. In the post-Cold War American unipolar era, many people had greater hopes for such an order. But at a time when Israel is carrying out military bombardments on Gaza, this order may be facing its most formidable and persistent challenges.
Regardless of the final decision of the International Court of Justice in this case, the rules and institutions that make up the rules-based international order are being undermined by the very countries that created it. At the same time, the Palestinians and their supporters are pressing these institutions to expose and hold Israel's allies accountable for the double standards. This is now a decisive moment for the future of the current international order.
Cracks and contradictions are not new to this rules-based order. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush sidelined the United Nations, which refused to bow to U.S. decisions. The actions of the United States in the so-called "war on terror" also contradict its professed values, as revealed by the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghrib and Guantánamo Bay. Still, the U.S. has used the invocation of the rules-based order as one of the means to restore, preserve, and project ideological power.
The West's reaction to Ukraine is proof of this. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union use global rules, institutions, and norms to counter Russian "aggression." Hillary Clinton, for example, warned that "if the Russian leadership does not want to be accused of war crimes, they should stop bombing hospitals". Russia claims that the Azov battalion and other militants used the hospitals for military purposes. However, Western countries are in unison, insisting that they defend democracy, human rights, and the norms and institutions of the rules-based order.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is exposing the inherent contradictions in the West's position as the guarantor of the international order.
Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people and took 240 people hostage, Israel's air and ground operations have caused more than 250,000 Palestinians died, including some 10,000 children. An estimated 8,000 Palestinians are currently missing, most likely dead under the rubble. The United Nations said Israel was "destroying Gaza's food system and using food as a priority" could trigger widespread famine.
Only a handful of countries have so far refused to call for a ceasefire at the United Nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, which believe that Israel has the right to defend itself and designate Hamas as a terrorist organization**. Instead, they continue to provide Israel with funds and funds, even as Israel bombs and besieges hospitals in Gaza – attacks that human rights groups and journalists believe violate international law.
At the same time, Biden is trying to use a combination of diplomatic, economic, and coercive incentives to force countries in the Middle East and North Africa to normalize relations with Israel.
Countries in the region believe that they cannot stand with Israel (at least not publicly) because their populations are staunch supporters of Palestine. They often reject U.S. proposals on the grounds of apparent contradictions in U.S. policy in Ukraine and Palestine. The two conflicts, separated by only a year or two, make it easier for many in the region to spot double standards.
For generations, the rules-based international order has been grossly inadequate in dealing justice to the region's most important and longest-running conflict. If the order proves to fail again without agreement to end this unprecedented bloody conflict in Gaza, it will further erode the confidence of the world's institutions created in the service of that order and could lead to its complete disintegration. Western leaders should think very seriously about this issue and what will happen next. (Compiled by Qiu Fang).