was the reign of terror justified essay

Home — Essay Samples — History — French Revolution — Was The Reign Of Terror Justified

Was The Reign of Terror Justified

• Categories: French Revolution Reign of Terror

About this sample

Words: 648 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 648 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1021 words

1 pages / 486 words

5 pages / 2116 words

2 pages / 1063 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on French Revolution

The historical relationship between Toussaint L'Ouverture and Napoleon Bonaparte is a complex and multi-faceted one that has been the subject of much scholarly debate and analysis. Both figures played pivotal roles in the [...]

Revolutions are pivotal events in history that have shaped the political, social, and economic landscape of the world. Two of the most influential revolutions are the French and American Revolutions, which occurred in the 18th [...]

The French Revolution and the American Revolution are two pivotal events in history that have shaped the modern world in profound ways. While both revolutions were fueled by a desire for liberty and equality, they differed in [...]

The American and French Revolutions are two pivotal events in world history that have shaped the modern political landscape. Both revolutions were fueled by a desire for freedom, equality, and democracy, but they unfolded in [...]

Did you know that a loaf of bread costed a week's salary for 98% of the population, which mainly included peasants, in France during the French Revolution? The French Revolutions, one of the major Revolutions in all of Europe [...]

There are many similarities and differences between the American and the French Revolutions. The American Revolution started because Great Britain put taxes on America and they were trying to break free from that. Great Britain [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Echoes of Chaos: the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror

This essay about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution provides a sobering examination of one of history’s most tumultuous periods. Spanning from 1793 to 1794, the Reign of Terror epitomizes the complexity of revolutionary fervor, showcasing the interplay between liberation and oppression. Led by figures like Maximilien Robespierre, the Committee of Public Safety wielded near-absolute power in its pursuit of safeguarding the revolution from perceived threats. However, this noble cause descended into a spiral of fear and retribution, as thousands faced the guillotine under suspicions of counter-revolutionary activities. Despite the darkness that shrouded France during this time, acts of courage and solidarity endured, hinting at the resilience of the human spirit amidst tyranny. Ultimately, the Reign of Terror serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the precarious balance between freedom and despotism, and the enduring struggle for justice in times of upheaval.

How it works

In the tapestry of history, few epochs unfold with the intensity and paradoxical essence witnessed during the Reign of Terror amid the French Revolution. Spanning from 1793 to 1794, this turbulent period stands as a stark testament to the human capacity for both liberation and brutality, illustrating the intricate interplay between revolution and its repercussions.

Emerging from the fervent crucible of revolution and the collective aspirations of the masses, the Reign of Terror materialized in response to the multifaceted threats besieging the nascent French Republic.

With external adversaries encroaching upon French borders and internal dissent fermenting within, the Committee of Public Safety, under the leadership of the enigmatic Maximilien Robespierre, ascended to power with the aim of safeguarding the revolution from perceived enemies.

Initially conceived as a shield against reactionary forces, the Reign of Terror swiftly devolved into a maelstrom of fear and retribution. The guillotine, once hailed as a symbol of egalitarian justice, metamorphosed into an instrument of state-sponsored terror, with thousands condemned to the relentless blade of revolutionary tribunals. Nobles, clergy, political dissidents, and even ordinary citizens found themselves ensnared in the relentless machinery of suspicion and paranoia, their lives forfeit to the capricious whims of revolutionary justice.

Empowered by near-absolute authority, the Committee of Public Safety embarked on a crusade of radical social transformation, endeavoring to reshape French society in accordance with the lofty ideals of the revolution. Decrees were promulgated, aimed at eradicating the remnants of the ancien régime and erecting a new societal order founded upon the pillars of equality and fraternity. Churches were desecrated, symbols of monarchy were obliterated, and time itself was reinvented, heralding the advent of a revolutionary epoch.

Yet, amidst the tumult and bloodshed, profound questions of legitimacy and morality arose, challenging the very essence of revolutionary fervor. The pursuit of justice, once perceived as the sacred duty of the revolutionary vanguard, became entangled in a web of contradictions and ethical quandaries. Robespierre, once hailed as the incorruptible avatar of the people’s will, found himself ensnared in the coils of tyranny, his erstwhile ideals tarnished by the excesses of the Terror.

Across the cobblestone streets of Paris and the verdant expanses of rural France, fear cast its long shadow, suffusing every facet of daily life. Informants lurked in the shadows, neighbors denounced one another with reckless abandon, and accusations of treachery became a currency of power in the crucible of revolutionary fervor. The guillotine, christened the “National Razor,” cast its grim specter over the land, its insatiable appetite for blood sparing neither rank nor station.

Yet, amid the darkness, flickers of resilience and humanity endured. Acts of courage and solidarity defied the oppressive regime, as individuals risked life and limb to shelter the persecuted and defy the machinery of state repression. Particularly noteworthy was the indomitable spirit of the women of Paris, whose demands for bread and equality reverberated through the corridors of power, challenging the entrenched patriarchy of the revolution.

As the Terror reached its apogee, its contradictions and excesses became increasingly untenable. Robespierre, erstwhile architect of revolutionary justice, found himself ensnared by the very apparatus he had helped to construct. In a dramatic denouement, he too faced the cold steel of the guillotine, his demise signaling the denouement of an epoch and the dawn of a new phase in the revolution’s turbulent odyssey.

In the aftermath of the Terror, France grappled with the indelible scars left by violence and upheaval. The revolution, once hailed as a beacon of hope and progress, had descended into the abyss, leaving in its wake a trail of devastation and despair. Yet, amidst the rubble, seeds of change had been sown, as the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity endured, tempered by the crucible of historical experience.

The Reign of Terror stands as a somber cautionary tale, a poignant reminder of the fragile equilibrium between freedom and despotism. It serves as a testament to the paradoxes inherent in the revolutionary enterprise, wherein the noblest of aspirations can give rise to the most egregious of atrocities. And yet, even amidst the darkness, there lingers a glimmer of hope – a conviction that, in the crucible of adversity, humanity possesses the resilience to persevere, to resist, and ultimately to transcend.

Cite this page

Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror. (2024, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/

"Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/

"Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Echoes of Chaos: The French Revolution's Reign of Terror . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/echoes-of-chaos-the-french-revolutions-reign-of-terror/ [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

studpaper.com

Home / Samples / Crime / Essay Example: Was the Reign of Terror Justified: Argumentative Essay

Essay Example: Was the Reign of Terror Justified: Argumentative Essay

Title: The Reign of Terror: Unraveling the Justification

Introduction

The Reign of Terror, a pivotal period during the French Revolution from 1793 to 1794, remains one of the most controversial and debated chapters in history. The revolution, sparked by the quest for liberty, equality, and fraternity, took an unexpected turn as the Committee of Public Safety, led by Maximilien Robespierre, initiated a wave of mass executions known as the Reign of Terror. The question of whether this ruthless and bloody phase was justified continues to evoke passionate arguments among historians and scholars. This essay aims to explore the multiple facets of the Reign of Terror, evaluating both its justifications and criticisms in the context of the turbulent times.

Historical Context

To understand the justification of the Reign of Terror, it is crucial to delve into the historical context that precipitated its occurrence. The French Revolution emerged as a response to centuries of monarchy, aristocratic privilege, and social inequality. The revolutionaries sought to establish a new order based on principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, external threats from neighboring monarchies, internal opposition, and economic challenges created an atmosphere of crisis. In such a volatile environment, the Committee of Public Safety argued that extreme measures were necessary to secure the gains of the revolution and protect the newly formed Republic.

The Threats Faced by the Revolution

One primary justification for the Reign of Terror was the perceived threats faced by the revolutionaries. External enemies, including Austria, Prussia, Spain, and Britain, formed coalitions against revolutionary France. Internally, counter-revolutionaries and monarchists sought to undermine the republic. The Committee of Public Safety argued that swift and decisive action was imperative to quell these threats. The revolutionary government, facing conspiracies and insurrections, contended that the suspension of democratic norms and the imposition of extraordinary measures were necessary for the survival of the republic.

The Logic of Revolutionary Justice

The proponents of the Reign of Terror defended their actions under the banner of revolutionary justice. Robespierre and his associates argued that the enemies of the revolution were not only individuals but also ideas and institutions that perpetuated inequality and tyranny. The radical measures, including the widespread use of the guillotine, were seen as a means to purify the republic by eliminating those deemed as enemies of the people. This concept of revolutionary justice, though extreme, was rooted in the belief that a decisive break from the past was necessary to build a new, egalitarian society.

The Social and Economic Transformations

Another aspect of the justification for the Reign of Terror lies in the socio-economic transformations that the revolution aimed to achieve. The revolutionaries sought to dismantle the feudal system, abolish privileges, and create a more egalitarian society. The Committee of Public Safety argued that the old order was deeply entrenched and resistant to change. The radical measures, including the execution of aristocrats and counter-revolutionaries, were seen as a means to accelerate the dismantling of the old social structures and pave the way for the establishment of a more just society.

Critiques of the Reign of Terror

Despite the justifications put forth by its proponents, the Reign of Terror is vehemently criticized on various grounds. One prominent critique revolves around the excessive and indiscriminate use of violence. The mass executions, often based on flimsy evidence and vague accusations, are seen as a betrayal of the very principles the revolution sought to uphold. Critics argue that the Reign of Terror deviated from its initial goals, descending into a cycle of bloodshed that undermined the legitimacy of the revolution.

The Erosion of Democratic Values

Another significant criticism centers on the erosion of democratic values during the Reign of Terror. The suspension of legal norms, the establishment of the Law of Suspects, and the concentration of power in the hands of the Committee of Public Safety are viewed as a betrayal of the democratic ideals that fueled the revolution. The very institutions that were meant to safeguard the rights of citizens were instrumentalized to suppress dissent and eliminate perceived threats, raising questions about the compatibility of such measures with the principles of liberty and equality.

Impact on Public Opinion

The Reign of Terror had a profound impact on public opinion, both in France and abroad. The excesses committed in the name of the revolution led to a climate of fear and suspicion. The radical measures alienated moderate revolutionaries and fueled internal strife. Abroad, the Reign of Terror hardened the stance of monarchies against the revolutionary ideals, making diplomatic solutions increasingly elusive. The long-term consequences of these actions would shape the perception of the French Revolution for years to come.

In conclusion, the question of whether the Reign of Terror was justified is a complex and multifaceted one. The historical context, the perceived threats faced by the revolution, and the ideology of revolutionary justice provided a rationale for the extreme measures taken by the Committee of Public Safety. However, the critiques of excessive violence, the erosion of democratic values, and the impact on public opinion cannot be ignored. The Reign of Terror remains a cautionary tale, illustrating the delicate balance between the pursuit of noble ideals and the dangers of descending into a cycle of violence and tyranny in the name of revolution. As we reflect on this tumultuous period, it is essential to consider the lessons it offers for the ongoing struggle for justice, equality, and the protection of democratic values.

Related Samples:

• Essay Example: The Reign Of Terror During French Revolution: Background And Effects
• Essay Example: The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Terror As An Instrument Of The French Revolution
• Essay Example: Human Rights: Right to Liberty and Security
• Essay Example: Media Violence And Its Effect On Mass Shootings
• Essay Example: Social And Criminal Problem Generated By Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs In Australia
• Essay Example: Mass Murderer VS Serial Killer: Compare and Contrast Essay

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order

Request for Studpaper Writing Service Today!

With a team of over 1500 homework writing experts, we are prepared and eager to assist you in enhancing your writing skills

Who We Are Contact Us FAQs

Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Refund Policy Revision Policy Terms and conditions Fair user disclaimer

Blog Pricing Samples Expert

Using this writing service is legal and is not prohibited by any university/college policies. MD: Looking for technical writing help? Get professional technical writing help from our academic experts

The papers we provide at Studpaper should serve as model and reference papers for our clients. These research papers should solely be used for reference purposes.

Copyright © 2023 Studpaper. All rights reserved.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Government Reign of Terror

Examining the Reign of Terror: Understanding its Unjustifiability

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• State of The Union
• Electoral College
• Body Camera
• Financial Crisis
• Totalitarianism

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Guided Essay: The Reign of Terror: Was It Justified? I....

Guided Essay: The Reign of Terror: Was It Justified?

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Grabber:

B. Background information:

The Reign of Terror lasted less than two years, from the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793 to late July 1794. During those eighteen months, more than 20,000 French people were put to death by guillotine.

C. Restatement of the question:

The question is whether or not this behavior by the revolutionary French government was justified.

D. Thesis and Road Map:

The Reign of Terror . . . (was / was not) justified. This claim can be supported by three reasons: . . . , . . . , and . . ..

II. BODY PARAGRAPH #1

A. Baby Thesis: The first reason the Reign of Terror was . . . (justified / not justified) was . . .

B. Evidence: Provide at least two pieces of evidence that support your baby thesis.

C. Argument:

This evidence shows that the Reign of Terror was . . . (justified / not justified) because . . .

III.  BODY PARAGRAPH #2

A. Baby Thesis: A second reason the Reign of Terror was . . . (justified / not justified) was . . .

B. Evidence: Provide at least two pieces of evidence that describes this reason.

This evidence shows that the Reign of Terror was (justified / not justified) because . . .

Build Paragraph

IV. BODY PARAGRAPH #3

Baby Thesis: Finally, the Reign of Terror was . . . (justified / not justified) when it came to . . .

B. Evidence: Provide at least two examples that describe this reason.

In this regard, the Reign of Terror was (justified / not justified) because . . .

V. CONCLUSION

A. "Although" statement:

The opposite argument could be made about the Reign of Terror. For example, one might say that . . .

B. Summarize your arguments and restate your main idea with fresh conviction and new words:

Answer & Explanation

. INTRODUCTION

A. Grabber: The Reign of Terror, a dark period in the French Revolution, is known for its excessive use of the guillotine that led to the death of thousands of French citizens.

B. Background information: The Reign of Terror lasted from January 1793 to July 1794, and over 20,000 French people were executed.

C. Restatement of the question: The question is whether the actions of the French government during the Reign of Terror were justified.

D. Thesis and Road Map: The Reign of Terror was not justified. This claim can be supported by three reasons: the excessive use of violence, the violation of human rights, and the failure to achieve its goals.

A. Baby Thesis: The first reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was its excessive use of violence.

B. Evidence: During the Reign of Terror, thousands of people were executed, often without a fair trial or evidence of wrongdoing. The guillotine became a symbol of the revolution, and its use was often motivated by political reasons rather than actual guilt.

C. Argument: This evidence shows that the Reign of Terror was not justified because the use of excessive violence went against the principles of the revolution, which aimed to establish a fair and just society.

III. BODY PARAGRAPH #2

A. Baby Thesis: The second reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was the violation of human rights.

B. Evidence: During the Reign of Terror, people were arrested and executed for expressing their opinions, practicing their religion, or belonging to a certain social class. The government also established a surveillance system that monitored people's activities and punished those who were deemed to be enemies of the revolution.

C. Argument: This evidence shows that the Reign of Terror was not justified because it violated basic human rights, such as freedom of expression and association, which were essential to the principles of the revolution.

A. Baby Thesis: Finally, the Reign of Terror was not justified when it came to achieving its goals.

B. Evidence: Despite the use of violence and repression, the Reign of Terror failed to establish a stable and democratic government. Instead, it created a climate of fear and mistrust that hindered social and political progress.

C. Argument: In this regard, the Reign of Terror was not justified because it failed to achieve its goals and instead created more problems than it solved.

A. "Although" statement: Although some argue that the Reign of Terror was necessary to establish a strong government, this argument overlooks the excessive use of violence and the violation of basic human rights.

B. Summarize your arguments and restate your main idea with fresh conviction and new words: In conclusion, the Reign of Terror was not justified because it went against the principles of the revolution, violated basic human rights, and failed to achieve its goals. Instead of creating a fair and just society, it created a climate of fear and mistrust that lasted for years after the revolution.

The Reign of Terror was a period in the French Revolution that lasted from January 1793 to July 1794. During this time, over 20,000 French people were executed by the guillotine. The question of whether this was justified or not is a topic of debate.

However, there are several reasons why the Reign of Terror was not justified. Firstly, it was marked by the excessive use of violence. Thousands of people were executed, often without a fair trial or evidence of wrongdoing. The guillotine became a symbol of the revolution, and its use was often motivated by political reasons rather than actual guilt. This use of excessive violence went against the principles of the revolution, which aimed to establish a fair and just society.

Secondly, the Reign of Terror violated basic human rights. People were arrested and executed for expressing their opinions, practicing their religion, or belonging to a certain social class. The government also established a surveillance system that monitored people's activities and punished those who were deemed to be enemies of the revolution. This violation of basic human rights, such as freedom of expression and association, went against the very principles of the revolution.

Finally, the Reign of Terror failed to achieve its goals. Despite the use of violence and repression, the Reign of Terror failed to establish a stable and democratic government. Instead, it created a climate of fear and mistrust that hindered social and political progress. This failure to achieve its goals meant that the Reign of Terror was not justified and instead created more problems than it solved.

In conclusion, the Reign of Terror was not justified because it went against the principles of the revolution, violated basic human rights, and failed to achieve its goals. Instead of creating a fair and just society, it created a climate of fear and mistrust that lasted for years after the revolution. Therefore, the use of violence and repression during the Reign of Terror cannot be justified.

I believe that you have received the answer you were looking for. 

Note: Should you require further clarification, please let me know through a comment, and I will assist you accordingly.

Related Q&A

• Q argumentive essay on the topic of revenge. G "Do you believe Revenge is ever justified?" 1.. Prewriting needs to have: s... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Please help with that discussion post:    Topic: Bonds When you have a fixed investment horizon, it is important to maxi... Answered 90d ago
• Q Investors need to know how much risk they have to take to confidently expect a certain percentage return. Likewise, mana... Answered over 90d ago
• Q    . Problem 5: State transition matrix properties (5 points). Show that the linear time—varying state equation if?) : A... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Why are the memory captures different sizes (the *.mem file and the *.ad1 file)? Name two reasons why we would want to u... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Assess the importance of organisational culture in allowing organisations to achieve a competitive advantage. Required: ... Answered over 90d ago
• Q And figure one below there are three out of five triangle shaded blue in figure 2 below. There are six at attend triangl... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Define "political competence" and discuss at least one example of how a nurse leader has or could demonstrate political ... Answered over 90d ago
• Q this is io.s: #************************************************************ # This is a test program for lab 9 for cosc ... Answered over 90d ago
• Q   Browse online articles about the Stockton CA serial killer, Wesley Brownlee.    The following is your prompt for the s... Answered 41d ago
• Q Up Bank is planning the purchase of a $5 million loan with duration of 7.5 years to raise the existing average duration ... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Mrs. Orso was Kyle's middle school teacher when he was in the eighth grade.  Kyle graduated from middle school and atten... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Forces and Motion: Basics - Force | Motion | Friction - PhET Interactive Simulations (colorado.edu). Forces in One Dimen... Answered 42d ago
• Q  . Question 10. During light to moderate exercise systolic and diastolic pressure but during moderate 1 pts to vigorous ... Answered over 90d ago
• Q There are key times an attorney is required to communicate with their client. What are they?  Discuss how often an attor... Answered over 90d ago
• Q Take the role of a consultant, hired by a large organization. Do some  research and find a 'candidate company' (for-prof... Answered over 90d ago

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Where Is America’s ‘Rules-Based Order’ Now?

By Spencer Ackerman

Mr. Ackerman is a foreign-policy columnist for The Nation and the author of “Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump.”

No sooner had a nearly unanimous United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding an “immediate cease-fire” in Gaza last month than the United States and Israel acted as if it were a meaningless piece of paper. Israel, unwilling to accept a U.N. mandate, continued bombing the overcrowded southern city of Rafah and besieging Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Shortly after the vote, Biden administration officials called the resolution, No. 2728, “nonbinding,” in what appeared to be an attempt to deny its status as international law.

It was a confounding approach from an administration that allowed the resolution to go through with an abstention after vetoing three earlier ones. It also triggered a predictable bout of hand-wringing over the value of international law. At the State Department press briefing after the resolution passed, the department’s spokesman, Matthew Miller, said the measure would neither result in an immediate cease-fire nor affect thorny hostage-release negotiations. One reporter asked , “If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of the U.N. or the U.N. Security Council?”

The question is valid, but it’s also misdirected. U.N. resolutions that are written without enforcement measures obviously cannot force Israel to stop what its leadership insists is a justified war necessary to remove Hamas and prevent another Oct. 7 massacre. But it’s just as obvious what entity can make Israel stop and isn’t doing so: the United States.

Whatever the Biden administration might have thought it was doing by permitting the resolution to pass and then undermining it, the maneuver exposed the continuing damage Israel’s war in Gaza is doing to the United States’ longstanding justification for being a superpower: guaranteeing what U.S. administrations like to call the international rules-based order.

The concept operates as an asterisk placed on international law by the dominant global superpower. It makes the United States one of the reasons international law remains weak, since a rules-based order that exempts the United States and its allies fundamentally undermines the concept of international law.

American policymakers tend to invoke the concept to demonstrate the benefits of U.S. global leadership. It sounds, on the surface, a lot like international law: a stable global order, involving the panoply of international aid and financial institutions, in which the rules of acceptable behavior reflect liberal values. And when U.S. prerogatives coincide with international law, the United States describes the two synonymously. On the eve of Russia’s illegal 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned of a “moment of peril” for “the foundation of the United Nations Charter and the rules-based international order that preserves stability worldwide.”

But when U.S. prerogatives diverge from international law, America apparently has no problem violating it — all while declaring its violations to ultimately benefit global stability. The indelible example is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which the George W. Bush administration cynically justified as a means of enforcing U.N. disarmament mandates. Iraq, the supposed violator, endured military occupation, while Washington’s unmatched military and economic power ensured that America faced little consequence for an invasion without U.N. authorization. Shortly before invading, the United States passed a law vowing to use “ all means ” necessary to release Americans detained by the International Criminal Court.

A cohort of American academics and once and future U.S. officials at Princeton later advocated what they called in a 2006 paper “ a world of liberty under law .” They framed it as addressing the weaknesses of international law, suggesting that when international institutions didn’t produce the outcomes favored by the “world of liberty,” there be an “alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action.” In practice, that forum has often been the White House. During the 2011 Libyan uprising, the United States and its allies used Security Council authorization of a no-fly zone to help overthrow Muammar Qaddafi — whose regime killed far fewer opponents than Israel has killed in Gaza since Oct. 7. American troops have now operated in eastern Syria for more than eight years, long enough for everyone to forget that there is no basis in international law for their presence.

That American-exceptionalist asterisk has been on display after each U.S. veto of cease-fire resolutions at the U.N. With Gaza’s enormous death toll and imminent famine , people can be forgiven for wondering about the point of the United States’ rules-based international order.

International law is unambiguously against what Israel is doing in Gaza. Two months before resolution No. 2728, the International Court of Justice ruled that the continuing Israeli campaign could plausibly be considered genocidal and ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide from unfolding. Ahead of 2728’s passage, the Canadian Parliament approved a motion, however porous , to stop new arms transfers to Israel. And the day the Security Council approved the resolution, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the occupied territories, Francesca Albanese, recommended that member states should “immediately” embargo weapon shipments to Israel, since Israel “appears to have failed to comply with the binding measures ordered” by the international court.

But after 2728 passed, the White House national security spokesman, John Kirby, clarified that U.S. weapon sales and transfers to Israel would be unaffected. To the astonishment of some Senate Democrats , the State Department averred that Israel was not violating a Biden administration policy that recipients of American weaponry comply with international law. Last week, the White House reiterated that it had not seen “any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law” after the Israel Defense Forces repeatedly bombed a convoy of aid workers from the World Central Kitchen who had informed the Israelis of their movements, killing seven.

The reality is that Washington is now arming a combatant that the United Nations Security Council has ordered to stop fighting, an uncomfortable position that helps explain why the United States insists 2728 isn’t binding.

And that reality isn’t lost on the rest of the world. The slaughter in Gaza has disinclined some foreign officials and groups to listen to U.S. officials about other issues. Annelle Sheline, a State Department human-rights officer who recently resigned over Gaza , told The Washington Post that some activist groups in North Africa simply stopped meeting with her and her colleagues. “Trying to advocate for human rights just became impossible” while the United States aids Israel, she said.

It’s a dynamic that sounds awfully reminiscent of what happened outside Europe when U.S. diplomats fanned out globally to rally support for Ukraine two years ago. They encountered “a very clear negative reaction to the American propensity for defining the global order and forcing countries to take sides,” as Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institution scholar, observed in a speech last year.

If the United States was frustrated by that negative reaction, imagine the reaction, post-Gaza, that awaits Washington the next time it seeks global support for the target of an adversary. The dead-on-arrival passage of resolution 2728 may very well be remembered as an inflection point in the decline of the rules-based international order — which is to say the world that the United States seeks to build and maintain.

Rising powers will be happy to cite U.S. precedent as they assert their own exceptions to international law. For as Gaza shows in a horrific manner, a world with exceptions to international law is one in which the least powerful suffer the most.

Spencer Ackerman is a foreign-policy columnist for The Nation and the author of “Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .