The expression "rules-based international order" has been used recently a lot by leaders of many countries. What does that expression mean to you?

Well, all the Russia and China fans will say it means sucking up to America but they are wrong.

It means the apologists will be out in force rehearsing a litany of grievances while ignoring the modern day problems of Ukraine, Taiwan, and the South China Sea.

Those self-established rules by whatever few or many leaders haven’t even been submitted for voting about yet, or have they and only I didn’t know or was absent? So I consider them only virtual or theoretical, of course not really and completely binding and that they are stemming at least from a non-democratic process and very questionable origin.

It means 'Do as we say, not as we do.'

Well, all the Russia and China fans will say it means sucking up to America but they are wrong.

No, they're pretty much right about that.

According to a recent article, this rules based order is ending anyway

"The rules-based international order is ending. What will replace it?"

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3736389-the-rules-based-international-order-is-ending-what-will-replace-it/

A rules-based order would be like the rule of law in a nation state. It would ensure fairness, justice, freedom from arbitrary tyranny and even less expenditure on arms. In the nation state, some may end up being able to get their way simply because of their power to influence things, including the law. But, whereas the nation state has power to implement and uphold law within, there is no equivalent on a global scale. The best we can hope for is that there is a set of rules which everyone agrees are in everyone's best interest to follow. Nations have, to that end, signed up to numerous agreements, from trade to human rights. There is such an infrastructure. This is the rules-based order. Major players have the power to bend and violate this rules-based order. And do so. That means that, in practice, due to there being no world policeman and only a limited international justice system, a rules-based order is flawed but, nonetheless, in theory it still exists as something to aim towards. Now, it comes down to whether you believe some countries have any part of them which believes in such an ideal. If you do, there is some hope and you might be able to identify such nations. If you don't, you may believe in global anarchy, cynicism and nihilism anyway. But you might see that some countries do not even seem capable of having such an ideal. They believe in nothing except their own power and preserving it for their narrow elites. You may even be able to grade nation states on a scale from believers to nihilists. The nihilists and cynics can certainly be identified.

Probably the most important aspect of a "rules based International order" involves sovereignty. Every nation's basic right to not have other nations invade ones land, bomb and kill innocent civilians and embark upon a policy of land-grabbing. Just as Nazi Germany did.

Fascist Russia is the poster child for NOT following "rules-based International order". It is crucial that free, democratic nations never stop standing up to bullies like Communist China and fascist Russia - and shut them out as far as possible.

Shut up and do as you're told peasants. Beatings shall continue until compliance is given.

It means nothing, but makes the speaker feel important.

Rules based? Well, if we take the U.S. as the major proponent and EXAMPLE of this purely propagandistic phrase, by simple day-to-day observation we see clearly that there is only ONE RULE in U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy: Do as we say or we'll KILL you...

It is simple:

We white dominated USA/EU/UK set the rules the rest of you follow them, we will still do as we please.

@Fighto

But America has been involved in more invasions since the Second World War than anybody else, not to mention overthrowing various governments around the world. So surely it is the poster child for NOT following "rules-based International order".

Here are example of ""rules-based international order".

The USA invasion of Iraq, Syria, the continued occupation of Guantanamo Bay, the illegal detention of "prisoners " in Guantanamo, USA Allie Israel in in violation of more USA resolutions than any other country including annexing the Golan Heights as officially part of Israel. The forced separation of Kosovo from Serbia in violation of the constitution. note the argument used by the West to reject Catalonian, Transnistria, Crimea, and other that declared independence was "it violates the dominant country's constitution and must be approved by the country claiming sovereignty over the territory" but when it suits the west like in Kosovo suddenly that no longer applies.

So rules for the western powers and their friends and different rules for the rest.

You've lived too long in Japan when you believe in a monolithic and uniform "West". The West gave rise to (or contributed overwhelmingly to) nationalism, fascism, socialism, romanticism, liberalism, the scientific method, Catholicism, Protestantism, Idealism, positivism, realism and constructivism in international relations, critical theory, postmodernism, ... the list goes on. No one would believe these are all mutually agreeable. They all inform opinion. Many here seem to be "realists" in their opinion about international relations: the stronger nations trample on the interests of the weaker ones. And presumably this must be the case for all the stronger nations. Or can you pick and choose? Is this because you believe there can never be any liberal (look it up if you don't understand this word; it is not "socialist") international order, with agreed on rules? If so, you must believe in "might is right" anyway, and whichever nations are asserting their dominance are congruent with your basic beliefs. If you believe a liberal order is possible, with agreed on rules, which nations are the threats to that? My guess is that it is those that are illiberal in their outlook anyway.

Rule based: Do as USA says or there will be sanctions.

It means nothing but lip service!! Just plain words, when have man ever reached a pinnacle of doing what they say, its always the opposite. It means nothing!!!