No-Rules Order

The most important question stemming from America's intervention in Venezuela is not whether it violated international law and norms, but what it reveals about the future of the liberal international order.

- Carla Norrlöf

Contrary to what some commentators say, that order is not collapsing, since its core pillars remain in place and the alternatives to them are still weak. But sustaining it will now involve more frequent discretionary US actions, and it will become increasingly unclear where the thresholds for future interventions lie.

When the perceived limits on state action recede, the meaning of power shifts. The question is no longer what is formally permitted, but how actions will be interpreted by others within the system. Venezuela exposes a growing tension between the American prerogative to pursue unilateral enforcement and the cooperative expectations on which US leadership ultimately depends. Global leadership is not just a state's ability to act; equally important is whether an action reinforces or erodes expectations of future prudence and restraint.

For decades, US power has rested on military and economic predominance, reinforced by dense alliance commitments. This configuration made withdrawal from US-led institutional arrangements costly, even when partners were dissatisfied. American authority, therefore, has rested not on consent alone, but on a structure of dependence created by security guarantees, alliance ties, and control over critical economic and strategic relationships.

But even if institutions can entrench advantage, they cannot offset the reputational and strategic costs of wielding discretionary power. While a single intervention against a weak or isolated state rarely alters the structure of the broader international order, the effects of such actions accumulate as others revise their expectations in response.