The Rules-Based International Order: A Historical Analysis

Abstract There has been a good deal of talk in recent years about the “rules-based international order”—the system of laws, agreements, principles, and institutions that, many observers say, lay at the heart of the international system that came into being after World War II. It is often argued that maintaining the rules-based order—and extending it if possible—should be a fundamental goal not just for the United States but for Western countries more generally. Those liberal internationalist arguments are supported by a number of historical claims: about how the rules-based order came into being and about the role played by key institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Bretton Woods monetary system. Those claims are examined here. The basic finding is that many common arguments in this area are not supported by the historical evidence. That finding serves as a kind of springboard for thinking about whether there are any viable alternatives to the sort of policy the liberal internationalists have called for. The argument here is that there are viable alternatives—alternatives based on certain traditional ideas about how foreign policy should be conducted.