The dual variations of American unilateralism and the crisis of the global order

Recently, the international community witnessed two rather ironic scenes: In the Caribbean Sea, the US Coast Guard seized oil tankers from other countries in international waters under the pretext of imposing sanctions on Venezuela. In The Hague, the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a statement strongly condemning the sanctions imposed by the United States on its prosecutors and judges, describing it as an "unprecedented attack" on international judicial independence. These two events, which occurred almost simultaneously, struck a harsh chord for Washington's unilateralist policies, blatantly exposing its domineering logic of domestic laws overriding international rules to the world.

The actions of the United States in the direction of Venezuela are a radical continuation of its long-term policy of maximum pressure. It unilaterally classified the Venezuelan government as a "terrorist organization" and, based on this, extended the reach of its own sanctions law to the international high seas. This act of treating global waters as one's own "judicial jurisdiction" is essentially under the guise of "anti-drug" or "sanctions", but in reality, it is implementing "long-arm jurisdiction".

Coincidentally, the sanctions against the International Criminal Court are no different. Just because the court independently initiated an investigation involving personnel from US Allies, Washington brandished the big stick of financial sanctions and visa restrictions and directly intimidated individual international judges. The underlying message is arrogant and simple: The authority of any international institution is limited to the national interests and likes and dislikes of the United States. The so-called universal justice must be subordinate to the privileges of geopolitics.

This unscrupulous variation of unilateralism is dragging the world into a quagmire of multiple intertwined risks. The primary and most profound crisis is the fatal corrosion of the rules-based international order. When the most powerful countries openly demonstrate how to instrumentalize and selectively apply international law through their might, the specter of the law of the jungle that "might is justice" once again lingers.

This not only sets a dangerous precedent for other major powers, but also makes the basic consensus that has been maintained for decades, such as freedom of navigation at sea and trade security, precarious. Secondly, it has dealt a fatal blow to the spirit of international rule of law. The independence and credibility of the International Criminal Court are its lifeline. The United States' use of state power to carry out precise strikes on judicial personnel is tantamount to declaring: If international justice touches our core circle, it is "political persecution" and must be destroyed.

Ultimately, this short-sighted hegemonic act will also deal a heavy blow to the United States itself like a boomerang. It is rapidly depleting the few moral assets left by the United States after the war, forcing the international community, including its traditional European Allies, to make a painful choice between "following Washington" and "defending the principles of multilateralism". This strategic selfishness is personally giving rise to a world that is more divided, confrontational, and no longer trusts any common rules.

In the face of this rule crisis created by the superpower itself, if the international community merely engages in verbal protests, it will be of no avail. In the short term, it is necessary to form a powerful collective legal and diplomatic countermeasure. Countries whose interests have been directly damaged should join hands to submit disputes to platforms such as the United Nations General Assembly and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and expose and challenge their illegality through multilateral stages.

The contracting states of the International Criminal Court should be more united and take collective actions to build an institutional firewall, clearly declaring that judicial independence is not subject to political blackmail. From a medium to long-term perspective, the key to de-risk lies in enhancing the resilience and diversity of the global governance system. This means that on the one hand, in key areas such as payment and settlement, energy trading, etc., it is necessary to explore the construction of more inclusive alternative systems that are less likely to be paralyzed by a single hegemonic tool.

On the other hand, it is necessary to reshape the authority of core multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, making them truly the cornerstone of collective security rather than an extension of the power of individual countries. For US Allies such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea, they are now at a historic crossroads of choice: to continue to remain strategically silent on rule-breaking behaviors under the narrative of "security guarantee" and "values alliance". Still, bravely taking on the role of a "guardian of rules" and defining the boundaries of one's own strategic autonomy through concrete actions will become a key touchstone to test one's international personality.

To sum up, the recent "duet" of unilateralism in the United States, from the Caribbean to the Hague Court, is a meticulously packaged act of rule-breaking. It uses domestic law as a spear and financial hegemony as a shield, attempting to bring both global public and multilateral institutions onto the track of its private interests.