BARBER: The biggest lie in global politics is the ‘Rules-Based International Order’

The legal system in developed countries has, in short, two key aspects that make it function: a structure for adjudicating legal disputes and a robust enforcement mechanism. If a person is suspected of violating a law, there is a detailed process for summoning that person to court. If they refuse to comply with a court order, police are dispatched to enforce it. On the other hand, if courts decline to prosecute violations or police choose not to execute court orders, the law effectively ceases to exist. Politicians and civic organizations may condemn violations, demand action, and hold meetings, but such rhetoric becomes meaningless when the institutions are unwilling to act. We have seen this dynamic play out in some US cities in recent years. Rules are followed only when they are enforced — and enforcement may require the credible threat or use of force. Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the Economic Club of New York on May 28. This trip was one of many where he has sought to increase interest in investing and doing business in Canada. In this address, he once again spoke of “rupture” in the global system and the future of the “Rules-Based International Order.”The same principle as with the law applies at the international level. The idea of a rules-based international order was advanced initially to create a structure that would prevent European nations from going to war again after World War II. This was especially important in the nuclear age. However, it was global in scope, although the term “Rules-Based International Order” only gained widespread currency in the twenty-first century. Its goal was to promote legal and diplomatic solutions to disputes instead of aggression, with territorial integrity of each state as one of its core principles. Supporting institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later succeeded by the World Trade Organization), as well as various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), were established to buttress this order..In practice, this order has never truly existed because enforcement has been consistently selective and weak. Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in the early months of 2014. Although some countries supported or tolerated the annexation, the response from others was mixed. The European Union (EU), the US, and Canada strongly condemned Russia’s actions. In particular, the EU called for dialogue to ease tensions, insisted that Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be respected, condemned the violation of its sovereignty, suspended bilateral talks, canceled a EU-Russia summit, backed the suspension of Russia from the G8 (now G7), imposed travel bans and asset freezes, banned arms trade, restricted energy technology exports, and later committed to reducing the EU’s dependence on Russian gas.Canada condemned Russia’s actions, recalled its ambassador to Russia, withdrew from the upcoming G8 summit in Russia, suspended military cooperation with Russia, and requested that any Russian military personnel in Canada leave. In short, critics viewed these measures as virtue signalling and largely symbolic gestures. In practice, the EU increased its purchases of Russian gas in subsequent years and allowed the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline despite objections from the US and some allies. Many businesses between EU members and Russia continued as usual: French and German automakers continued producing and selling cars in Russia, while EU clothing, food, technology corporations, and financial institutions maintained operations. Finally, EU countries such as Germany and France possessed significant military assets, but they were not deployed to support Ukraine at that time. The responses by the EU and Canada demonstrate the largely symbolic nature of their actions.Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus in 1974 led to a permanent division of the island, triggering multiple UN resolutions condemning the action. The European Court of Human Rights repeatedly ruled against Turkey for ongoing human rights violations, yet no meaningful sanctions were imposed — only limited diplomatic isolation was called for. The European Economic Community (predecessor to the EU) supported the UN resolutions but took no further concrete actions. The EU has never recognized the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), has placed restrictions on direct trade with Northern Cyprus, and continues to pass resolutions against the occupation. The Republic of Cyprus (in the south) joined the EU in 2004. However, the EU and Turkey are strategic partners, Turkey is still an EU membership candidate, and Turkey has been a member of the EU Customs Union since 1995. Since 1974, trade between Turkey and the EU has increased substantially; EU investments in Turkey continue, the European Investment Bank maintains operations there, and major EU corporations operate production facilities in Turkey. France, Italy, and other EU members have navies, but none of them were deployed to support Cyprus. Once again, it was business as usual. (Canada did provide support to the UN forces through Operation Snowgoose, but this was peacekeeping rather than enforcement against the occupier.).The above are two clear examples of the EU failing to enforce the “Rules-Based International Order” in its own backyard. Other instances of insufficient responses and lack of substantial proactive action include: Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008; Azerbaijan’s military takeover of the Republic of Artsakh and subsequent expulsion of the Armenian population in 2023; Iran’s ongoing nuclear activities, ballistic missile program, support for terrorist, and disruption of shipping via proxies in 2023; Venezuela’s escalation of the Essequibo territorial dispute in 2023; North Korea’s repeated violation of non-proliferation norms and threats against neighbors from 2003 to the present; and Myanmar’s 2021 military coup along with its continuing attacks on the Rohingya population. Canada, too, has offered only insufficient responses and no meaningful proactive enforcement of these violations of the supposed “Rules-Based International Order.”The US has been largely left out of the above examples, which were focused on the EU and Canada. Prime Minister Carney has explicitly made this distinction, invoking the ancient Thucydides observation that the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. In this framing, the strong are the US and China. However, his rhetoric implies that the “rupture” of the old rules-based order was primarily brought about by the US and the broader dynamics of great power competition.From the list of cases above, it is clear that the EU lacks the will to enforce the “Rules-Based International Order,” even when violations are in its own geographical sphere, let alone elsewhere in the world. Even worse, despite repeated verbal condemnations and diplomatic virtue signalling, it remains business as usual. As for Canada, it has been a long time since its meaningful contribution to the UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus in 1974, and its responses in support of the Order have been no better than the EU’s, as demonstrated in the cases above.The “Rules-Based International Order” seems to be nothing more than a comforting slogan that its proponents use to congratulate themselves for their moral superiority. It requires no real enforcement — only performative outrage, particularly when there is money to be made. Prime Minister Carney’s oration has caught the imagination of EU diplomats and the press, but it is nothing more than a liberal pipe dream. Just as with unenforced laws, there never was a “Rules-Based International Order.”Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.

BARBER: The biggest lie in global politics is the ‘Rules-Based International Order’

Related Stories

Smith says Canada needs a new strategy as Trump questions CUSMA

BORG: Ford is in Washington to boost his polling, not US trade

CUSMA carve-out remains as U.S. proposes new 10% forced-labour tariffs

Order of Canada revoked from former SNC-Lavalin CEO amid corruption fallout