"International law is a funny thing. Within a country, lines of authority are clear. The government makes laws, it has agencies that enforce them, and the penalties for violating the laws are clear. But, in our modern system of sovereign states, no authority sits above the nation. Each country is sovereign. International laws are, therefore, more fragile, because they require the consent of everybody involved to keep them going."

This was the purpose of the imperium, not necessarily in the narrow sense of empire we often have in mind, but as a kind of order (e.g. the HRE).

In our case, the United States as hegemon has played the role of the global imperium over much of the world over the last few decades, and over a good chunk of the world since WWII. The reigning doctrine of the American empire has been liberalism (which explains why many if not most Americans/Westerners treat liberalism as a "neutral" position; it is the water we swim in). It explains why the US has intervened in numerous distant conflicts, engaged in countless "nation building" campaigns aimed at spreading liberal democracy around the world, and successfully influenced peoples worldwide through its film and media. These were all intended to preserve and enlarge the liberal imperium.

Now that liberalism has devoured and corroded the Protestant mother that held it together, and escaped the containment it created - in large part through the infusion of liberalism into Protestant doctrine - we are witnessing the fullness of the tensions inherent in liberalism playing out in the human psyche and society and unraveling liberalism and the liberal order. The shape of the emerging postliberal order is uncertain. The noisiest contenders seem to be an increasingly overt tyrannical liberalism and fascism, though a less conspicuous movement aiming to return to pre-liberal classical traditions is also in play.

This is a very skewed reading of actual history.

The USA's efforts in South America (for example) were not aimed at spreading liberal democracy - the USA routinely intervened after democratic elections appointed leaders they didn't like, and installed military juntas or dictators that they did like. There was an overt tendency in US foreign policy to install right-wing leaders where possible, partly as a defence against Cold War Communism.

The wars that the USA engaged in since WW2 have not been about promoting liberalism, or removing totalitarian regimes. They have been explicitly about protecting US economic interests abroad, and generally feeding the military-industrial base as Eisenhower predicted.

> The reigning doctrine of the American empire has been liberalism (which explains why many if not most Americans/Westerners treat liberalism as a "neutral" position; it is the water we swim in).

Most definitely not. The reigning doctrine has been enforcing American wishes, wants and airs, both public and private, by force. Liberalism is a poor guise, mainly to brainwash the locals into accepting the status quo on both sides of the aisle.

At nations level anarchy is the rule of law.