For years now, I have noticed how often politicians and the media talk about a „rules-based world order“ is being discussed. The current conflict between the USA and Venezuela has brought this topic back to the fore. In the past, this term hardly ever came up, but today it almost seems like a standard reflex: if something happens somewhere, it is quickly said that we have to „defend the rules“. At the same time, I have gained the impression that the same people who refer to these rules particularly often no longer feel consistently bound by them themselves when in doubt. It was precisely this contradiction that made me wonder.
What's more, the more often you hear such terms, the more vague they seem. „Rules-based“ sounds clear, but often remains vague. And „international law“ is often used as a moral seal of approval, although it is actually a legal framework - with conditions, limits and loopholes. I have therefore decided to take a closer look at this topic. Not as a lawyer, but as someone who wants to understand what this order once was at its core - and what its real strength lay in.
