Yet double standards have persisted. This shows that the rules-based order is not just imperfect but fundamentally flawed. Countries such as China have called for “an international order based on international law”, based on the view that the Western framing of the rules-based order goes against the spirit of the rule of law by embodying unilateralism and power politics rather than multilateralism and democratic justice.
Australian defence minister Richard Marles, in his speech at the Shangri-la Dialogue, had noted that the global rules-based order is not just a “Western project”, with thinkers from across the Global South, including China, India and countries in Africa, being central to its formation.
Yet in the aftermath of World War II when this rules-based order was forged, many areas of the Global South were colonised and largely illiterate. Their representation was deeply compromised.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sits with Swiss leaders Ignazio Cassis and Viola Amherd on the left, as well as his head of the presidential office, Andriy Yermak, and US national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the right during a peace summit near Lucerne, Switzerland on June 16. Photo: EPA-EFE
The concepts that underpin the rules-based order, such as respect for sovereignty and human rights, have remained largely unchanged. But the world has dramatically changed. Given the distrust and diverging values among today’s major powers, it’s unlikely that new rules can be developed fast enough to resolve conflicts.
Besides, what precisely constitutes this order remains poorly defined and subject to interpretation, and there are different ideas about which rules should take precedence. Western leaders have pointed out that Russia violated agreements guaranteeing Ukraine’s security and borders, and that territorial integrity is fundamental to the rules-based order.
Russia, however, has long maintained that Nato violated the rules first, by expanding east and undermining Russia’s security. In the absence of a mutually accepted neutral arbiter, each will stick to their own interpretation.
This points to a bigger issue with the rules-based order: all rules require enforcers to work. In theory, the UN Security Council was designed for this, but in practice, rules are only enforced when there is little division among the five permanent members. In the 2020s, the number of UN Security Council vetoes has risen to a frequency not seen since the 1980s.
Over the last 12 months, 10 resolutions were vetoed by one or more permanent members. Half of those vetoes were over the Israel-Palestine conflict, most of which were cases of the American mission defending Israel’s position, either by refusing calls for a ceasefire or claiming that formal UN admission of Palestine would force the US to defund the UN.
US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield casts a veto, on February 20, against a UN Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Photo: AFP
Meanwhile, Israel itself has largely ignored rulings from the International Court of Justice calling for greater access to humanitarian aid and an end to its Gaza offensive. Many people perceive the US government’s perspective on the Gaza war as deeply hypocritical, which may further delegitimise the rules-based order.
Increased geopolitical divisions are affecting issues where there used to be broad common ground. In March, Russia exercised its veto power to weaken enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, likely to repay North Korea’s support for Russia’s war.
Putin visited North Korea last week, signing a defence agreement that is likely to further embolden both sides. It’s not just that the rules don’t apply to UN Security Council permanent members, but that their hold on minor powers is also slipping.
In the face of the UN Security Council’s inaction, the US has played the role of global policeman. However, no system can work in the long term when someone is both player and umpire. The US has been plagued by a crisis of legitimacy since it lied to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In an undated picture provided by North Korea’s state news agency on October 10, 2022, the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, oversees a military exercise conducted to assess “nuclear counter-attacked capabilities”. Photo: KCNA / KNS / dpa
When people refer to the rules-based order, they’re actually expressing support for a preferred set of values, such as the importance of sovereignty and human rights. Both proponents and detractors argue that this is just another way of referring to the liberal international order based on Western values.
From Western condemnation of human rights violations to Chinese insistence on development, it is clear that while countries around the world emphasise different priorities, they’re all articulating a vision of what a more decent world would look like.
Now is the time to replace the rules-based order with the decency-based order. No one would argue against being decent, and there’s also a clearer idea of what’s being talked about, unlike with “rules”.
While different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes decency, clarity of topic can allow us to dive deeper in finding areas of agreement and more effectively denounce actions broadly seen as indecent. The world can’t police decency, but it increasingly can’t police today’s rules anyway.
Hua Han is co-founder and secretary general of the Beijing Club for International Dialogue
Jersey Lee is an associate at the Beijing Club for International Dialogue
Denial of responsibility! Chronicles Live is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – chronicleslive.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
