Editor’s note: Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN. 

While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.

The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials.

For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination.

The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria.

From Kosovo to Crimea: Hypocrisy of Washington’s ‘rules-based order’ would be funny if it weren’t so serious

The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US.