Rules Based order

A legitimating order Jiang says America claimed to preserve after 1991 through U.N. authority and restraint.

Here it names the postwar American system that Jiang says mixed real benefits with imperial hypocrisy.

Jiang uses the term critically to name a Western-led order that presents itself as lawful and universal while functioning as coercive geopolitical domination.

Jiang's name for a U.S.-led system that claims neutrality but in practice advantages America and its allies.

Jiang reads Xi's multipolar language as a defense of a U.N.-centered, rules-based international order against the law of the jungle, unilateral bullying, and a revived fascist or militarist nationalism, especially in Japan and Germany.

Rules-based institutions and culture make people believe the game is fair, so collapses look like natural gravity or moral failure rather than engineered events.

The rules-based international order hid American domination behind multilateral bodies, making empire appear as fairness, logic, reason, and debate.

The rules-based order decays when the hegemon starts ignoring its own rules, as Jiang says America did by bombing Libya and Syria and attacking Iran without international approval.

The Pax Americana replaces the World War II nation-state order with an international rules-based order, global free trade, and consumerism.

Jiang defines the first post-1991 U.S. theory of empire as limited objectives, coalition action, and U.N. authority under a rules-based order.

Jiang says the current war is not unfolding as he expected because, unlike Iraq 2003, the United States did not even perform the old bureaucratic rituals of public persuasion, legal process, and rules-based justification.

Jiang says Mark Carney's speech marks a turning point because it openly declares the old rules-based order a myth and the Trump-era United States a mafia empire.