Asia Times
Asia Times Covering geo-political news and current affairs across Asia
A ‘rules-based’ or ‘principle-driven’ new global order?
UN Charter’s respect for sovereignty, non-intervention and territorial integrity, as well as human rights, freedoms and open economics must prevail
by Eric Alter
September 10, 2024
The 'rules-based order' is breaking down with the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Image: X Screengrab
With the revival of great power competition on an unprecedented scale, there seems to be little appetite for main actors to meet in the middle. This combustible environment makes global cooperation increasingly elusive and challenging.
Among the most striking signs of these turbulent times is the assault on the rules-based international order, a long-time staple of Western foreign policy.
While the term was coined only after the Cold War, states’ commitments to such an order, mainly for reasons of peace and security, can be traced back to the significant efforts to establish order after the Second World War.
While the concept is used to mean many different things, most often, it is understood as a shared commitment among states to conduct their activities in accordance with a set of established principles, rules and institutions that govern global affairs.
But which specific rules does this order refer to? And who has the authority to set and enforce them?
Under the guise of upholding universal principles, states and other international actors are subject to a range of inconsistent binding and non-binding rules, as well as double standards.
For instance, Western leaders participate in collecting evidence related to the Russia-Ukraine war but hesitate to act similarly regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Likewise, governments support the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting Russia’s leader for war crimes while criticizing its decision to seek an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.
The reality remains that the rules-based international order, still largely influenced by American liberalism, is now viewed by many as incapable of effectively regulating, let alone structuring, a coherent system of global governance.
Recently, the two main ongoing wars have pushed the international order to its limits and catalyzed a semi-constitutional moment favoring alternative approaches to international cooperation.
Even though this world has been seen before, and the post-1945 world order was precisely a direct response to two horrendous wars and a terrible economic depression, the nature and architecture of the rules-based order now require revision.
This revision is necessary to accommodate other powers’ visions of international order and to prevent the law of the jungle from taking over.
The reaffirmation of the fundamental importance of the Atlantic Alliance and NATO finding renewed purpose are welcome developments, particularly in light of Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine.
Howqever, a piecemeal approach will only contribute to the emergence of distinct sub-orders, potentially makind the global order appear less unified and, therefore, more minimalist or normatively weaker.
To restore the rules-based international order from the brink and enhance its effectiveness, two key determinants must be considered.
Firstly, the international order should reflect the new geopolitical and economic realities by accommodating a more multipolar distribution of power that includes the national visions of emerging middle powers, mainly from the Global South.
These powers are increasingly linked to a new Non-Aligned Movement, potentially more impactful than its 20th-century predecessor. In integrating states initially excluded from rule-setting, commitments may become more general compared to those from like-minded groups.
However, this inclusive approach is essential to mitigate potential conflicts arising from competing blocs of like-minded states.
Secondly, the international order must establish an international legal and institutional framework that, rooted in fundamental principles and values, adopts a pragmatic approach to international cooperation.
Essentially, it should effectively manage conflict between states, promote a more inclusive, equitable, resilient, and sustainable global political economy, allow for rule-setting by a diverse range of state and non-state actors, and foster sufficient international cooperation to address major transnational and planetary challenges.
What, then, is the common ground of principles that could reasonably succeed for everyone and to which all sides could adhere?
Based on international rules that not all states consider akin to rules of international law, this approach faces limited prospects for success. In international society, much like in domestic contexts, rules and norms serve not only as technical guidelines but also as authoritative expressions of principles that define the objectives and course of collective action.
It is, therefore, the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and other international standards that must prevail. These include respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, and territorial integrity, as well as human rights, fundamental freedoms and an open international economic system.
These principles are already accepted by UN member states precisely because they embody the deeply held values of most of humanity, making them both a moral imperative and a legal foundation of international relations.
Clearly, a rules-based order aligned with the UN entails privileges and hierarchy, notably within the Security Council. Nevertheless, it also represents a system where some power differentials are moderated to promote a more predictable environment, enabling diverse actors to participate in decision-making and have a voice.
At first glance, relying on the UN’s foundational principles may seem incompatible with the diversity, change and novelty of current events. How, then, can these opposing elements be reconciled into practical commitments?
It is undeniable that these principles cannot offer automatic solutions to specific problems due to their conflicting implications. However, they serve as criteria that can be carefully weighed and balanced to arrive at rational solutions. Despite the inherent tension between principles and immediate needs, they can be aligned to work in harmony.
Principles are flexible in that they do not prescribe specific procedural patterns or detailed mechanisms for action. They allow for adaptation and can embody opposing tendencies. For instance, a principle like the observance of human rights is counterbalanced by the concept of non-intervention. Similarly, the principle of equality among states is always viewed within a framework that includes the responsibilities of major powers.
This is precisely the understanding former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold conveyed many years ago: international affairs constitute a dialogue among various actors in the court of world public regarding the legitimacy of state behavior. As states assert their rights, leaders also affirm and validate these rights through actions that uphold credibility.
What remains to be determined is the space for global cooperation on issues crucial to humanity’s existence: climate change and biodiversity, long-term peace and security, including responsible conduct in outer space, the cyber domain and artificial intelligence, and the commitment to human rights and other fundamental freedoms. These pillars of progress require setting aside competitive advantages stemming from bilateral or regional rivalries.
An essential element in achieving sustainable adherence to these principles is to identify common interests as a basis for joint action and agreed standards. The concept of “diplomatic variable geometry,” proposed by the Biden administration, advocates a pragmatic approach where each problem is addressed through a tailored combination of partners. For these arrangements to succeed, it is crucial to involve not only states but also substate actors and civil society.
New transnational organizations and arrangements will play a crucial role in sustaining cooperation in trade, development, finance and monetary policy while helping to establish new global standards.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), launched by the G7, is a valuable example. It addresses global money laundering and terrorist financing networks, establishing international standards to combat these illegal activities.
Additionally, various ad hoc approaches in different fields, such as the Major Economies Forum on climate change, the Nuclear Suppliers Group on nuclear issues and the Proliferation Security Initiative on missile proliferation, are already tackling specific challenges.
Such practical actions and operational measures can influence the development of international behavioral standards and their effective implementation. They can introduce a new dimension and enhance a principles-driven international order for all nations.
Eric Alter is dean of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, Abu Dhabi and an
adjunct professor at the Paris School of International Affairs <8psıa9, Sciences Po.
No comments:
Post a Comment