DW Live TV -PoliticsUnited States of America - What is the 'rules-based order' and can it survive? - Matt Pearson - 4 hours ago

DW

Live TV

PoliticsUnited States of America

What is the 'rules-based order' and can it survive?

Matt Pearson

4 hours ago   4 hours ago

The shared structures that have underpinned global cooperation for years are crumbling, according to world leaders. Can the international rules-based order be saved, and how could the future look without it?

https://p.dw.com/p/58tqM

Marco Rubio and Friedrich Merz shake hands in front of US, German and EU flags

Marco Rubio and Friedrich Merz both spoke about the rules-based order at the Munich Security Conference last weekend

Image: Liesa Johannssen/Reuters/dpa/picture alliance

Marco Rubio considers it an "overused term" while Friedrich Merz thinks it "no longer exists". But while the US Secretary of State and German chancellor may not believe in the relevance of the rules-based international order, the concept — and its potential collapse — has been at the forefront of global geopolitics of late.

The phrase caught the global attention in January after a rare speech, from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in which a world leader tackled the often unspoken concept head on.

"We knew the story of the rules-based international order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim," he said. "Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised."

What is the rules-based international order?

Broadly speaking, the phrase refers to a system of multilateral laws, agreements, principles, and institutions designed to manage relations between states along liberal lines.

"The term replaces what was previously referred to as the liberal international order," Professor Stefan Wolff, Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre think tank, told DW. "Both described the system developed under American leadership after the end of the Second World War with the UN and the Bretton-Woods institutions as its core pillars."

The Day with Nicole Frölich: Rubio's Munich Moment

26:04

The Bretton Woods system is a set of financial rules agreed between countries which guarantee convertibility of each nation's currencies into US dollars and ensure the dollar is convertible into gold bullion for international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund.

But with recent tariff wars being fought across the globe and the relevancy of the UN being called into question, the foundations of the concept of agreed international rules is shaking more than at any time in its history.

While Rubio, in the same speech at the Munich security conference, said the UN has "tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world", he immediately followed up by stating that "on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role." The US has also looked to set up alternative global structures such as the Donald Trump-led Board of Peace.

Has this worked for the whole world?

Given it was driven by the US, the rules-based international order has never been wholly accepted by states such as Iran or Russia, who follow a very different set of conventions. "Rule America—that is the essence of the notorious rules-based order," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last year.

But otherwise, said Wolff, "key parts of it are widely accepted as useful parameters within which states should conduct their external affairs."

The political scientist added that while the western world is seen as its architect, the system has not only benefited western nations.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sit at a desk behind microphonesRussia's President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sit at a desk behind microphones

Russia feel the rules-based order is too focused on the needs of the USImage: Alexander Kazakov/Sputnik/REUTERS

"The principle of the self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, was instrumental for decolonization,” he explained. "The principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity have ensured equal status (albeit not equal capacity) of new states created after 1945, including many in the global south."

Is the era of international rules-based order over?

If its natural supporters, such as Merz and Carney, are prepared to pen its obituary in public, it appears to be on its last legs, at best. Trump's second presidency has seen the US exit a huge number of international organizations both within and outside the UN. These include agreements on climate, health, trade and energy.

With US foreign policy increasingly rejecting the old order, and US-Europe relations strained, Wolff said it's hard to see the rule-based international order as healthy. "It certainly has been severely damaged, but that has been a choice, notably by Russia under [President Vladimir] Putin and the US under Trump," he said.

What will replace the rules-based order in geopolitics?

This is the question now being played out on the world stage, with Putin and Trump as the key actors. Wolff said that it will take time for a new structure to bed down and that rules, albeit different ones, will still be necessary.

How China is playing its geopolitical cards in the Trump era

14:44

"If current trends continue, it will be a far less liberal order, an order that is less attentive to the needs of marginal and vulnerable groups, and an order more prone to conflict, including violent conflict within and between states. We can see the latter already, and have seen it for several years, which is also a characteristic of the transition between the old and yet-to-emerge new order," he said.

What will a new system mean for the world?

Wolff believes that we are currently in a transitional period in terms of geopolitical framework, but it's hard to see the end point being an improvement.

"Ultimately, the demise of the existing order, and especially the way of its demise, will be regretted, even by those now more vociferously advocating for it. It will take a long time and be very costly to establish something that is ultimately inferior compared to what existed before.

"What existed before should have been gradually reformed rather than destroyed. The biggest loser in this will most likely be the one who triggered the accelerated collapse of the old order — Russia. All that the Kremlin will have achieved at huge cost to Russia and Ukraine will be a more assertive and capable Europe to the west and a more dominant and predatory China to the east."

Edited by: Andreas Illmer

Kommentarbild Matt Pearson Kommentarbild Matt Pearson 

Matt Pearson Reporter and editor

@thisismpearson