Following over a year of relentless Israeli bombings, resulting in tens of thousands of Palestinian fatalities and a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, there emerged a significant global consensus declaring “enough is enough”.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 12667 passed in December unambiguously called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Nations as varied as Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Colombia supported this demand.
However, standing against this consensus were nine votes in opposition – with the United States prominently leading the dissent, as is habitually the case regarding resolutions urging Israel to comply with international laws or human rights standards.
The U.S. has maintained steadfast support for Israel throughout its military actions in Gaza, even amidst allegations of genocide presented at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) against its Prime Minister.
The situation in Gaza forced the U.S. to publicly choose between upholding the international “rules-based order” – a system designed to prevent conflicts and promote democracy post-World War II – and supporting Israel. It opted for the latter.
The administration of former President Joe Biden, which was nearing the end of its term while voting “no” on the UNGA resolution, repeatedly asserted its commitment to defending the so-called rules-based order – demonstrated in its strong condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in all matters except those concerning Israel and Palestine.
In contexts unrelated to Israel or Palestine, Biden’s Democratic administration claimed to protect the rules-based order, particularly through its persistent denunciations of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The U.S. backed Ukraine in its struggle against what it regarded as an unjust invasion by a neighboring country. Similarly, in the Asia-Pacific, it bolstered alliances with countries apprehensive about potential Chinese expansionism, especially Taiwan.
However, in the early weeks of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, expectations were dramatically altered. Now, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine finds himself reprimanded in the Oval Office by Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, who made overtures toward Russia.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance addresses the 61st Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025, in Munich, Germany [Sean Gallup/Getty Images]Greenland, Panama, and Canada – one of the U.S.’s closest allies – are now subjects of Trump’s imperialist discourse.
Trump has made it clear that traditional norms are being disregarded. His approach toward Ukraine and his push for trade tariffs against allies reflect an isolationist “America First” mentality, viewing global issues as irrelevant to U.S. interests and branding international cooperation as a weakness.
Vance’s comments at the Munich Security Conference in February – suggesting that European governments are authoritarian for not collaborating with far-right factions – underscored the idea that Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement perceives Europeans as allies only when their leadership aligns with conservative and nationalist ideologies.
Is this indicative of future trends? Is the U.S. distancing itself from its allies and detaching from the rules-based order? And was the rules-based order ever truly global, or merely a framework to enhance Western interests?
The brief answer: Trump’s current path could signify the ultimate decline of a global order long criticized for its double standards and selective enforcement of international law. European leaders are already asserting the need for self-defense, indicating that the U.S. cannot be relied upon. Analysts consulted by Al Jazeera argue that the rules-based order cannot withstand this onslaught in its current state; it must adapt and evolve.
The Rules-Based Order
At its core, the rules-based order serves as the foundation of modern international relations. Ideally, it aims to sustain stability, facilitate cooperation, and instill a degree of predictability in state interactions.
Emerging from the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, the rules-based order – supported by international law and organizations like the UN – was established to embody shared principles of sovereignty, self-determination, territorial integrity, and diplomatic dispute resolution over military force.
Proponents, including the U.S. and Europe, assert that the system fosters peace, democracy, human rights, and economic security.
Nonetheless, critics contend that Global South countries perceive its institutions as biased towards Western interests, reflecting the dominance of the U.S. post-World War II as the global hegemon.
Historically, the rules-based order has relied on American economic, diplomatic, and military power, which intensified following the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War in 1991, as the U.S. emerged without a significant competitor on the global stage.
Imperial Thinking
The initial weeks of Trump’s second term feel distant from the post-Cold War optimism when Francis Fukuyama claimed, in “The End of History and the Last Man”, that liberal democracy had triumphed in the battle of ideologies.
Palestinian boys near the destroyed headquarters of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees at Nur Shams refugee camp near Tulkarem in the occupied West Bank on November 2, 2024 [Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP]
Currently, Trump informs Zelenskyy that he “does not have the cards right now” in Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression, demanding a deal for Ukraine’s natural resources in exchange for support.
For Europe, as well as the Biden administration, Ukraine’s conflict represents a fight for sovereignty and the defense of democracy against authoritarianism. Trump, on the other hand, disregards these arguments, presenting himself as a “peacemaker” grounded in a harsh realism that prizes power above principle.
A similar indifference toward the principle of sovereignty is reflected in Trump’s controversial Gaza “plan,” suggesting a U.S. takeover of the territory and the ethnically cleansing of Palestinians.
Although he has recently appeared to soften his stance on expelling Palestinians, there is scant evidence indicating that the notion has been entirely dismissed.
“Trump’s readiness to betray Ukraine while simultaneously giving Israel the go-ahead to act unlawfully and perpetuate cycles of violence is consistent with a troubling pattern,” asserted Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College, Dublin, who earlier worked at the ICJ, in an interview with Al Jazeera.
As for global free trade – a key objective of the rules-based order – Trump dismisses it as a misguided endeavor, claiming the U.S. has been “ripped off for decades by nearly every country on Earth”.
Rather than fostering a cooperative global spirit under U.S. leadership – however flawed it may have been – Trump appears to acknowledge a multipolar reality characterized by spheres of influence, offering little room for liberal ideals.
This aligns him with authoritarian figures like Putin and may shed light on why Trump sometimes displays greater affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin than for European Union leaders.
The overt disdain for conventional global governance structures exhibited during Trump’s administration has led observers to suggest that the pretense of adherence to a rules-based order may be vanishing, as the world seems to be reverting to “might is right”: a raw power dynamic reminiscent of 19th-century international relations.
Increasingly, as explained by Professor Michael Doyle of Columbia University, justifications for aggressive unilateral actions by powerful states are as overt as they are self-serving.
“New articulations of imperial ambitions and raw acquisitive motives are surfacing: restoration of the Russian empire in Ukraine, capturing Greenland for its resources and navigable routes, and controlling Panama to dominate shipping lanes and counteract Chinese influence,” Doyle commented to Al Jazeera.
A demonstrator displays a banner portraying a playing card with Russian President Putin and U.S. President Trump during a protest against Trump’s position on the invasion in front of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 8, 2025 [Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters]
“There are no credible claims for self-defense or adherence to multilateral norms,” he continued, noting that we are witnessing a “reversion to the principles of 19th-century imperialism and the foreign policy ethics reminiscent of Mussolini and the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s.”
HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) concurs, cautioning, however, that while this trajectory is concerning, a reversal remains within the realm of possibility, even if it appears to lean heavily toward authoritarianism.
Can the Damage to the Rules-Based Order be Reversed?
In the face of a U.S. that appears detached from international standards, the steps the global community can take to mitigate its ambitions remain uncertain.
Few mechanisms empower states to directly influence others’ actions, and most still depend on economic dominance.
Typically, to enforce international law, nations resort to sanctions, tariffs, trade embargoes, UN denunciations, ICJ rulings, or criminal prosecutions at the ICC.
Since World War II, the U.S. dollar has been the favored reserve currency for many central banks worldwide, meaning that any economic sanctions targeting the dollar carry risks of widespread repercussions.
Additionally, the magnitude of the U.S. economy complicates matters. By 2023, the U.S. accounted for approximately one-seventh of global GDP, with other nations largely dependent on it for trade and military security – significantly diminishing the likelihood of any state successfully bringing forth a case against it.
The feasibility of the ICC pursuing charges against the U.S. president for actions in Palestinian territories deemed as war crimes or crimes against humanity is also fraught with complexity.
“Prosecuting Trump at the ICC presents a legal and political labyrinth with virtually no chances of success,” remarked Becker, who has previous experience at the ICJ.
“Such a move could unravel the Rome Statute framework under U.S. pressure,” he added, referencing the 1998 statute establishing the ICC, which the U.S. signed but never ratified due to concerns regarding accountability for its citizens or military actions.
Israelis protest at the entrance to UNRWA, the principal U.N. agency providing aid in the Gaza Strip, in Jerusalem, March 20, 2024 [Ohad Zwigenberg/AP]
“International law is fragile and far from ideal,” Becker noted.
“Yet, maintaining a world public order that is not dictated by the whims of the most powerful countries necessitates that other states vocalize their objections to the Trump administration’s actions,” he added.
A Hypocritical System?
The fate of the rules-based order hinges on whether states are willing to confront Trump’s approach. For countries like Russia and China, the potential dissolution of a system perceived as focused solely on Western interests might be welcomed.
Historically, the U.S. has acted with apparent impunity – demonstrated through its invasion of Iraq in 2003 and various targeted killings. Despite findings from the European Court of Human Rights indicating complicity in torture in the U.S.’s extraordinary rendition program by countries like Romania, Lithuania, Poland, and North Macedonia, international repercussions have seldom materialized.
The U.S., not being a party to the ICC, has resisted the Court’s authority over actions taken by non-signatory states like Israel, and has even imposed sanctions on ICC personnel following warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant due to war crimes in Gaza.
Trump justified these sanctions by claiming the ICC was undertaking “illegitimate and unfounded actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”.
There is also considerable evidence suggesting that Israel’s protracted military actions against Gaza have eroded the credibility of the rules-based order.
When it comes to Israel, multiple countries – including France, Hungary, and Italy – have declined to enforce ICC arrest warrants. Germany’s anticipated next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has promised a similar stance.
“Israel has conducted a prolonged military campaign in Gaza in outright defiance of international law,” stated Hellyer from RUSI.
“The ICJ is engaged in a genocide case, and the ICC has indicted Israel’s prime minister, yet the response from far too many in the West has been to devise numerous justifications to avoid arresting Netanyahu, a far cry from how they would treat Putin, who also faces indictment.”
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, addresses the media at UN headquarters in Geneva, December 11, 2024 [Pierre Albouy/Reuters]
“We cannot uphold a rules-based order in the case of Ukraine, lamenting America’s failure to do so, while simultaneously allowing an outright flouting of that order in Gaza,” he continued.
“To echo Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi: ‘Gaza has become not only a graveyard for children but a cemetery for international law, a disgrace on the entire global order.’”
As per Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, the potential collapse or significant weakening of the so-called liberal-based order may at least signal an end to the hypocrisy that has often characterized its enforcement.
“In the Global South, it has consistently been perceived as hypocritical, as U.S. allies often enjoyed immunity from scrutiny,” he shared with Al Jazeera.
“Even amidst human rights abuses and violations of international law, those allies received a free pass, while states resisting superpower interests were frequently targeted.”
The Risk of Change
For international law to be credible, it must be universally applicable, remarked Hellyer. “When it isn’t, it communicates a dangerous message that extends far beyond Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine.
“A retreat from multilateralism leaves us ill-equipped to confront future crises, be they health emergencies or military conflicts,” he warned.
The implications for smaller states and countries in the Global South remain uncertain.
In the immediate term, those likely to suffer the repercussions of a diminishing rules-based order would include “the Palestinian people and numerous small nations vulnerable to proxy conflicts and aggressive regional powers,” Bitar remarked.
Without the safeguarding of a rules-based framework, Taiwan faces greater threats from China, the tenuous agreements from the 1990s – such as the Dayton Accord ending the Bosnian War – could unravel, and without established international human rights standards, minorities like the Uyghurs in China find themselves with even fewer avenues for justice.
Bitar holds a rather grim outlook for any possibility of revitalizing a rules-based order after the conflict in Gaza.
“The emergence of international institutions and laws arose in the aftermath of World War II,” he said. “Once dismantled, it will be profoundly challenging to reconstruct.”
Instead, the global order risks devolving into competing spheres of influence, dominated by the U.S., Russia, China, and an unmoored Europe.
What is even more alarming, Bitar adds, is that the breakdown of a cohesive global governance structure coincides with what he perceives as a decline in democracy among its most vocal proponents in the West.
“We are witnessing an upswing of what some term illiberal democracies,” Bitar observed.
“Simultaneously, there’s the rise of an oligarchy or plutocracy, wherein the affluent and powerful rule devoid of checks and balances.”
Jana Ayad, a malnourished Palestinian girl, rests in a bed while receiving treatment at the International Medical Corps field hospital in Deir el-Balah, Gaza, June 22, 2024 [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·