Why do we keep finding ourselves at war?  Why can’t all nations agree to a rules-based international order?

The reason is that what the foreign policy establishment likes to call “rules-based international order” is something like a constitution without a government.  Since there is no overall authority to enforce the rules, the system gives the advantage to rogues, who exploit the reluctance of rule-following states to act against them.

Of course, even without an overall authority, likeminded states can act together to punish violations of the rules.  But reaching agreement to do so is difficult, and the difficulty goes beyond merely getting them to agree.  For how do you do away with the temptation to be a free rider?  If some states agree to enact sanctions, then other states will use the opportunity to cut a deal with the rogue.  In fact, even states which approve the sanctions in principle will be tempted to work around them quietly.

Besides, the goal of those who cherish the idea of a rules-based international order is predictability.  Everyone knows what everyone else will and won’t do under every condition.  So those who aren’t pleased with the status quo game the system, always walking right up to the line and putting their toes a quarter of an inch beyond it.  The temptation of the status quo states is to keep moving the line back.

Thus, without occasional resort to force, the so-called rules-based international order makes certain disruptions of international order more likely rather than less.  And that means less peace rather than more.