{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02188183807439825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.32258064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why consistency matters in preserving the rules-based order

ABSTRACT Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has set the direction for inter-state relations through the establishment of the rules-based order. This very order can be generally believed to draw from the institutions, conventions, and norms centred on the United Nations. However, the brewing power competition between the US and China banks on either preserving or revising this order. Interestingly, the US, its allies, and its strategic partners regard themselves as the protectors of these rules, while China is often seen as a revisionist bent on altering the status-quo. However, there have been issues even among certain major democracies regarding their own adherence and interpretation of these very rules. This paper seeks to highlight the vulnerabilities of the rules-based order, which considerably compromise its legitimacy and enforcement by major democracies. Two isolated but pressing cases have been presented to demonstrate how three particular democracies: India, the US, and the United Kingdom seem to have varied interpretations of certain aspects of the rules-based order. This inconsistency will have significant implications on their roles as responsible stakeholders of the established order, which, in turn, may provide revisionist states an opportunity for exploitation.