The Imperial Mask of International Law: How the West's 'Rules-Based Order' Continues to Subjugate the Global South

The Historical Context of Western Legal Hegemony

The recent commemoration of D-Day’s 80th anniversary serves as a potent reminder of how Western powers have systematically constructed a global narrative that positions themselves as the guardians of international order and morality. President Biden’s speech at Omaha Beach, while emotionally charged, exemplifies the West’s enduring tendency to frame world events through its own moral and political lens, ignoring the complex realities of nations that have suffered under colonial and imperial domination. This article examines the profound hypocrisy embedded within the so-called “rules-based international order” - a system that purports to be universal while remaining fundamentally Western in its conception, application, and beneficiaries.

The Atlantic Charter of 1941, often celebrated as a foundational document of modern international relations, was itself a praeter-colonial compromise that attempted to reconcile colonial ambitions with post-war ideals. The subsequent establishment of the United Nations, while a significant achievement, inherited these contradictions, creating institutions that would perpetuate Western dominance under the guise of international cooperation. For decades, this system has operated as a sophisticated mechanism for maintaining structural power imbalances while presenting itself as neutral and universal.

The Theoretical Underpinnings of Legal Imperialism

The analysis of international law through works like Golding’s “Lord of the Flies” and Shakespeare’s legal references reveals a disturbing truth: the rules-based order functions much like the conch in Golding’s novel - a symbol of authority that grants speaking rights only to those who hold it. In the global context, this means that Western nations, particularly the United States and European powers, retain the privilege of defining, interpreting, and applying international law while marginalizing alternative perspectives from the Global South.

Legal philosophers like H.L.A. Hart have acknowledged the “open texture” of law - its inherent ambiguity and malleability. This characteristic, rather than being a weakness, becomes a tool of power when Western legal experts exclusively control its interpretation. The result is a system that can be stretched to justify Western military interventions in Iraq or Libya while condemning similar actions by non-Western powers, creating what critics rightly identify as blatant hypocrisy.

The Global South’s Struggle for Recognition

The persistent Western dominance of international legal institutions represents a continuing form of epistemic violence against the Global South. As noted by scholars from Kyrgyzstan and proponents of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), the field remains “mostly Western, white, and male” - a staggering indictment of systematic exclusion. This isn’t merely about representation; it’s about the fundamental right of diverse civilizations to participate in shaping the rules that govern international relations.

Civilizational states like India and China bring millennia of philosophical, legal, and governance traditions that could enrich international law, yet the Western-controlled system dismisses these perspectives as irrelevant or inferior. The West’s insistence on its particular version of statehood, sovereignty, and human rights reflects a profound arrogance that ignores the rich diversity of human social organization across different civilizations and historical contexts.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Application

The article’s discussion of Western hypocrisy regarding Ukraine versus Palestine reveals the brutal selectivity of the rules-based order. While Western leaders passionately defend Ukrainian sovereignty against Russian aggression, they simultaneously enable Israeli violations of international law in Palestine. This double standard isn’t merely inconsistent; it exposes the racist underpinnings of a system that values some lives and sovereignties above others.

This selective application extends to economic relations as well. Agreements like the CPTPP, while potentially beneficial for trade, often serve as vehicles for extending Western economic dominance under the guise of “free trade.” The original TPP explicitly sought to exclude China, revealing how economic frameworks become geopolitical tools for containing rising powers that challenge Western hegemony.

Toward a Truly Pluralistic International Order

The solution isn’t to abandon international law but to fundamentally transform it into a genuinely pluralistic system that respects civilizational diversity. Scholars like Arnulf Becker Lorca’s concept of “Mestizo International Law” and Alejandro Álvarez’s “American Public Law” offer promising avenues for creating a more inclusive legal framework that acknowledges the contributions and perspectives of non-Western civilizations.

The Global South must assert its agency in reshaping international institutions rather than accepting subordinate positions within Western-designed structures. This requires developing alternative legal frameworks, supporting South-South cooperation, and creating institutions that reflect the philosophical and cultural diversity of human civilization rather than imposing a homogenized Western model.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Our Civilizational Voice

The rules-based international order, in its current form, represents the latest iteration of Western imperial domination - more sophisticated than colonial armies but equally effective in maintaining global hierarchy. The praeter-colonial mind understands that true liberation requires not just participation in existing systems but the transformation of those systems to accommodate multiple worldviews and civilizational perspectives.

As nations of the Global South, we must reject the cynical manipulation of international law while championing its emancipatory potential. We must build alliances, develop our legal scholarship, and create institutions that reflect our values and interests. The future of international relations shouldn’t be a choice between Western hypocrisy and alternative hegemonies but a genuinely pluralistic system where multiple civilizations can coexist and contribute to global governance based on mutual respect and equality.

The struggle for a decolonized international legal order is the defining challenge of our time - one that will determine whether humanity can move beyond centuries of imperial domination toward a future of true civilizational pluralism and justice.