SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: China’s response to Washington’s “economic D-Day” against Iran is more than a diplomatic objection. It reflects a deeper divide over how the international system should be governed: a law-based order versus a rules-based order.

https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/2092424902078783550

China’s response to Washington’s “economic D-Day” against Iran is more than a diplomatic objection. It reflects a deeper divide over how the international system should be governed: a law-based order versus a rules-based order.

Beijing grounds its position explicitly in international law and the UN Security Council. This is the language of a law-based order, where legitimacy derives from binding rules that states have accepted: the UN Charter, treaties, and Security Council mandates. Under this logic, coercive measures are lawful when they have a recognized legal basis. Unilateral sanctions imposed without Security Council authorization are therefore not enforcement of international law. They represent a departure from it. Sovereign equality, state consent, and multilateral process are the foundations of this order.

The American position rests on a different conception: the “rules-based order.” Its proponents draw a distinction between “rules” and international law itself. These rules encompass norms, standards, and expectations shaped largely by Washington and its partners. They do not necessarily derive from the UN Charter or ratified treaties, and their application can vary according to circumstances. Within this framework, unilateral sanctions and “maximum pressure” can be presented as instruments for defending international order even when they lack a clear basis in international law.

This is the heart of China’s criticism. When Beijing objects to sanctions that have “no basis in international law or UN Security Council mandate,” it is rejecting the premise that one state can define, interpret, and enforce the rules for everyone else. From this perspective, economic coercion is not law enforcement. It is the substitution of power for law.

The distinction extends far beyond Iran. It raises a fundamental question about the international system that will emerge in the coming decades: will the rules governing states be genuinely universal, or will they ultimately depend on who has enough power to define and enforce them?

Quote

CHINA MFA Spokesperson 中国外交部发言人

@MFA_China

13h

MFA Spokesperson on U.S. “economic D-Day” against #Iran:

China is firmly against sanctions that have no basis in international law or UN Security Council mandate. Economic warfare and maximum pressure provide no solution. They only serve to fuel tensions, disrupt global economic