The unilateralism of the United States in the global arena and its justifications for adopting some of its foreign policies, especially since the beginning of the new millennium, have led to the idea that the United States has moved beyond the multilateral order based on international law and wants to form a unipolar world centered on itself, and for this reason, it has replaced international law with the term "rules-based international order." In such a way that the term "international law" is not heard or seen in most speeches by American officials and correspondence and documents issued by government authorities, whether domestic or foreign. Of course, Europe also accompanies the United States in this program, with a slight difference in attitude and practice, which has caused China and Russia and their allies to object to this. In fact, the aforementioned governments consider this behavior of the West as a factor in increasing its hegemony at various political and economic levels and exercising surveillance and neo-colonialism over other regions of the world. While understanding the existing concerns, this article seeks to answer the question of whether the use of the term rules-based international order by the United States and its allies is a simple synonym for international law or a substitute for international law by referring to library sources, documents issued by Western governments, and examining their performance in the international arena. Considering the performance history of the United States, it seems that their intention is to replace international law with their own rules-based international order.