The West and its allies have always tried to project an image of democracy and freedom. At least in Western countries, they stand for these things, and we should respect that. But when it comes to a system of laws, you only know whether it stands for them when it follows those laws itself.

Over the past three decades, that distinction has become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The central legal framework is not particularly obscure. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter requires states to refrain from threatening or using force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence. Article 51 recognizes an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense following an armed attack, while the Security Council possesses authority under Chapter VII to authorize enforcement action.

Yet Western military practice since the end of the Cold War has repeatedly tested, stretched and, critics argue, sometimes violated those restraints.

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was an important turning point. NATO launched its air campaign without explicit authorization from the UN Security Council, arguing that intervention was necessary to halt a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. NATO has since acknowledged that it lacked an explicit Security Council mandate, although supporters have advanced various legal and humanitarian justifications for the intervention.

There's a difference.  You can think it was justified but still see why it was problematic for an alliance to decide it could go to war in another country for humanitarian reasons. If there's a loophole for powerful nations, then others can argue the same thing.

Iraq was another big break from this rule. The US and allies went into Iraq in March 2003 with no new Security Council resolution that would have allowed for the invasion of Iraq. At the time, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that it was not in line with the UN Charter. Many countries also argued it was illegal during Security Council debates.

It was about more than just removing Saddam. The country suffered through years of insurgency and sectarian warfare. Terrorists, refugees, and loss of infrastructure.  Not only were there no WMDs found, but this also discredited Western nations even further.

Afghanistan can be looked at differently.  It is hard to compare it to others. After the attacks on 9/11, the US decided it had a right to defend itself. Afghanistan became a problem when the US used military action. It started with a more justifiable reason, then became a twenty-year war to control the country.

Libya was different.  UN Resolution 1973 stated that all necessary measures could be taken to ensure the safety of those at risk, but it did not allow an occupying force. Again, this led to the downfall of Gaddafi's government and years of civil war. Therefore, some claim that protecting civilians turned into wanting to overthrow the government, which leads to the Russian and Chinese objections to Western intervention.

The cumulative result has been a widening credibility gap

Western governments frequently invoke sovereignty, territorial integrity and the international rules-based order when condemning violations by adversaries. Those principles are essential. But their persuasive force diminishes when countries outside the West believe Washington or its allies interpreted the same standards more flexibly when they chose to use military force.

That idea has only become more relevant as we go through 2026. After the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28th, we have seen Iran strike back and multiple rounds of attacks by both sides. As of September, fighting continues despite attempts at ceasefires and negotiations. No matter what reasoning each side uses for its use of force, it raises the question of who decides when it's acceptable to use force on a global scale.

This matters far beyond West Asia

We can't continue to have an international law system where countries use it on others and feel they are above certain laws. If America feels it has a reason to strike preventively or one-sidedly, then every country will have reasons to do the same. This will create a world of deals, not laws.

It's not about condoning what Russia, China, and Iran, etc do or ignoring what these countries have done when being stood up against by Western powers. Saddam was a tyrant, Milosevic committed war crimes (or at least was charged with them), and the Taliban let Al-Qaida flourish. Libya was threatening its own people.  None of which excuses the disregard for International Law.

Indeed, the purpose of law is precisely to restrain governments when they are convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

The greater danger, therefore, is not simply that Western military interventions have sometimes produced disastrous consequences. It is that selective adherence to international rules gradually destroys the legitimacy of the rules themselves.

The post-1945 international system was built upon an extraordinarily important proposition: powerful nations should not possess an unrestricted right to wage war merely because they believe their cause is just. That principle emerged from the devastation of two world wars. It remains as relevant today as it was in 1945.

Military power will not help the West maintain the international rules-based order if that is what they want. There needs to be more of an acceptance that your allies and friends should abide by the same restrictions you ask of others.

Perhaps the biggest threat to the international rules-based order will come from those who support it. When nations stand by these rules when it suits them and ignore them when it does not. The more international law becomes a tool used by those who enforce it, the farther we drift from a world of rules and closer to might makes right.