The Rules Based Order may have a role to play in the orderly conduct of day to day and uncontroversial matters but, if it ever held sway in major national issues, it does not any more. It does not have any real teeth, because nation states ( and particularly the major ones) are not prepared to let it have any. So, it can be and is ignored when major national interests are concerned, although its more fervent devotees may occasionally buck that trend ( e.g. Starmer over Chagos). Over the last few years, international events have shown that an influential minority of states have scant regard for international law. In that environment, why would other countries limit their own national self interest by observing it?
I am not an international law lawyer, but, in light of the development in the latest world event as of today, I wonder, hypothetically, if a ruled-based country which “acts like a gangster abroad” seeks assistance of another ruled-based country following adverse consequences arising from the former’ s persistent gangsterism, should the latter offer help?
The RBO is nonsense on stilts- because there's no such thing as internationa law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report comment