It has been shown that the West in general and the US in particular consider international law to be inconsequential and something that does not apply to them. In general, the West’s culture of supremacy dictates the rules and puts the “liberal West” above the “illiberal rest.”

The phrase “illiberalism,” meaning the opposition to liberal principles, is quite new, but commentator Tanja A. Börzel has taken it further by drawing attention to the “illiberal rest,” which she also calls the “dirty rest.” The phrase is intended to identify a Western mindset that believes that the West is superior to the Global South.

According to the US State Department, “the US does believe that international law matters. We help develop it, rely on it, abide by it, and, contrary to some impressions, it has an important role in our nation’s constitution and domestic law.”

However, the US appears unwilling to be bound by international law. If the US or its allies are opposed to an issue, international law will be grossly flouted, and the US will take a stand that is totally oblivious to the rules of international law and to fairness and justice more generally.

Change is taking place around the world today, and the balance of power is shifting. Many other blocs are establishing themselves, including those involving Russia, China, and other members of the BRICS group of countries. There are also the many nonaligned and developing countries. These countries see the world differently to the West, and their views are affecting the global legal order as the West perceives it.

Since the West has long practised hegemony over the rest of the world, dictating what is right or wrong according to its own preferences, its governments become enraged when an issue goes against the path that they set for it. In the process, their double standards are exposed.

A case in point is how US lawmakers ignore international law. They consider the US and its allies, particularly Israel, to be above the law. In September, a US bill called the Illegitimate Counter Action Act that aimed to sanction anyone perceived to be against the US and Israel was passed in the US Congress. This is “an Act to impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies.”

Lindsey Graham, a Senator for North Carolina, leads the pack of intolerant and prejudiced US lawmakers. After the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister of Defence Yoav Gallant in November, Graham threatened to sanction US allies enforcing the ICC warrants and reduce them to “economic oblivion” if they complied with them.

 “The Rome Statute [that founded the ICC] doesn’t apply to Israel, or the United States, or France, or Germany, or Great Britain, because it wasn’t conceived of to come after us,” he said. On the other hand, Graham supported the ICC warrant issued to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Other members of Congress have been similarly outraged that a US ally could be prosecuted for committing criminal acts under international law. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said that “the US firmly stands with Israel and refuses to allow international bureaucrats to baselessly issue arrest warrants to the Israeli leadership for false crimes.”

Senator Tom Cotton said, threateningly, that “the ICC is a kangaroo court and [Prosecutor] Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it.”

US President-elect Donald Trump has said there will be “all hell to pay in the Middle East if [the Israeli] hostages are not released by January 20.” Has he looked at the atrocities committed by Israel day in and day out over the last 400 days in Gaza and taken them into account? The double standards are glaring.

What this means is that the US is dismantling itself with the very tools that it had earlier harnessed. The US has always considered itself to be the world’s saviour, doing everything right, never erring, and in absolute conformity with the law. That image is slowly but surely eroding.

It also means that the only right way of dealing with issues around the world is to follow the guidelines set by the West, since the West often considers non-Western countries to be unequal. The US believes its values can make the world a better place, but when the US fails to adhere to the guidelines it sets for others, it loses its superiority, credibility, and global prestige.

As the world begins not to see eye-to-eye with everything that the US calls for, the country’s image becomes stained and its standing tarnished.

Consistency in foreign policy is vital if the West wants to come across as the world’s leading power. Double standards undermine international law and all countries that adhere to it. The rules that the West expects Russia to follow in Ukraine should be the same as those that Israel and its supporters should follow in Gaza. If Putin is to be arrested under an ICC warrant, then Netanyahu and Gallant should get the same treatment.

What should the US and the West do to overcome the problems of credibility they face today? First, they should apply the rules they originally set for the rest of the world to themselves as well. Second, they should avoid double standards since these entail a world with no standards at all. Third, the West should abandon its cherry-picking of international law. Laws are laws, and they should apply to everyone.

The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 12 December, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly