The "rules based order" is just an American invention to give our government something to talk about besides international law, which the US has basically always ignored.
no, you cannot enforce rules based order on the whole world when it suits you (to force everyone use USD for reserves and global trade, allowing USA to borrow unlimited money for free and export inflation to entire world), but the moment it doesnt suit you - just abandon it.
why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally?
I agree with you, I'm trying to add color to the situation by pointing out that America has benefited from this invention stemming from the conditions of pax americana where the alternative is international law via the UN and ICC and other institutions that are perhaps more independent than the US would like.
> china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right?
In general, the US would introduce retaliatory tariffs in that scenario; the game theory of the situation basically requires that.
Despite popular belief, the CCP is also not actually completely immune to public discontent (it often seems to be really quite scared of it), and would likely be willing to kick off a major trade war, as it would cause price increases.
tariff concerns should be discussed via WTO, not unilateral sanctions.
otherwise all this "rules based order" is not worth paper it is written on