Florida Journal of International Law
The New World Order was to herald in a new era in international affairs. It was to be an era of collective security sponsored and reinforced by the United Nations. In reality, however, the natural desire to enlarge the New World Order has quickly met with failure.
As the failures of the New World Order mount, the phrase loses its power. No peace movement has ever been premised on maintaining a strong and viable military, and no proponent of the New World Order can ever hope to be immune from the wishful thinking of those who demand the dismantling of the very forces that sustain and protect the freedom of the nation―the military establishment.
On the other hand, the concept Rule of Law does not necessarily carry with it the connotation that man is ever capable of achieving such a panacea. For the Rule of Law, it is enough if aggressive wars can be controlled through deterrence. Although the United States military most certainly deterred the aggressiveness of the Soviet Empire from 1945 to 1991, it was the beacon of American freedom that ultimately dispelled the darkness of communism. To the world, the United States offers a pattern of prosperity and freedom under the Rule of Law. This is the message the United States must continue to send to the world―not the ambiguous signals associated with a New World Order.
Jeffrey F. Addicott, The United States of America, Champion of the Rule of Law or the New World Order?, 6 Fla. J. Int’l L. 63 (1990).