Why is the concept of 'rogue states' controversial?

The term 'rogue state' is often used to denote a state which presents a risk to international stability through its failure to adhere to both domestic and foreign policy norms. Domestically, rogue states may engage in human rights abuses, or be authoritarian in nature. A rogue state's foreign policy might include vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons or antagonistic rhetoric towards rivals. The term is most closely associated in the present day with North Korea although Iraq under the Saddam regime and Libya under the Gaddafi regime are two further contemporary examples of states which were classified as 'rogue' by the US throughout the 2000s.The term is often criticised as 'Americentric'. For example, Syria might appear as rogue to the US but not to Russia due to the alliance between Putin and Assad. Linked to this criticism is the notion the the US uses language to delegitimise states which threaten their regional or global hegemony. Moreover, radical critical theorists might suggest that US foreign policy often mimics the very policies carried out the rogue states which it seeks to condemn. The US for example evaded international law and carried out torture upon inmates at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Yet the US condemn similar human rights abuses in Syria, Iraq and Venezuela as the actions of a 'rogue state'. Additional controversy arises when the term is used to legitimise 'humanitarian' or strategic intervention, which naturally raises problematic questions about the respect for sovereignty in an asymmetric global order.