The U.S. wants to retain the right to commit war crimes without someone charging U.S. officials or soldiers with them, they have the sovereign right to commit war crimes. Russia doesn't, Iraq doesn't. The U.S. does, Israel does.
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.
?? Not sure. Can you provide examples of condemning for war crimes those and other regimes in the current times? I may be wrong, but I am getting the vibe of "free for all until somebody bigger shouts that's enough" - more clearly, I am not seeing ethical stances defended.
--
Edit: thanks Newjazz for the reply. Did not notice, I thought they just decided "free for all". Yes, that makes it more appalling - shameless.
Having trouble with google since they only seem to report news from the last month, but rubio has definitely criticized Hamas, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Note that I acknowledge that in many of these cases the criticism was rightful, but the context here is the double standard.
The 'international rules-based order' was established by the US at the end of WWII as the legal framework for rebuilding Europe after the war.
Honest question, what makes you think the US, China, or Russia need to abide by legal agreements made 80 years ago by people who aren't around anymore? Those three countries have since agreed amongst themselves that the 'international rules-based order' was a mistake, and nobody else has a big enough stick to do anything about it.
> The 'international rules-based order' was established by the US at the end of WWII as the legal framework for rebuilding Europe after the war.
The 'international rules-based order' is used today by the U.S. to imply to a naive reader that they mean international law as defined by the UN, whereas in fact they mean the world order where they're the world police, which essentially started after WWII and really kicked into another gear in the 90s when the U.S became the undisputed dominant power.
The phrase today is used merely as a ploy to suggest the U.S. is not acting alone/without UN approval in cases it in fact does precisely that.
> Honest question, what makes you think the US, China, or Russia need to abide by legal agreements made 80 years ago by people who aren't around anymore?
I dunno. I would like things like the Geneva Conventions to outlive their original authors, thank you very much.
As an aside, I don't think China's foreign policy can be casually compared to that of the U.S.
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.