Simply put the "Rules Based Order" is something US makes the Rule as a world hegemony of law & order but doesn't need to abide by the same law. It is similar to dictatorships on a world wide scale.
On a smaller scale, it is referred to as "rules for thee but not for me" I look forward to the day when everyone is able to stand up to this bully class imposing themselves on America and around the world.
@@sword7872 You're correct. The day that you've been looking for started in 2012, with the end of an era as the Mayan Calendar proclaimed. Not just the Mayan calendar ended on 2012 but also a so called "Kali Yuga" by the Indian's standard ended in the same year. According to Indian epics, Krishna just before his death in 3102 BCE, told, behold, you'll see a period of 5124 years of Kali (unjust world) upon you.{Note: This period is the period of the Jews}. After that, a period of Satya Yuga ((Justified world) will be born. Some speculated there might be some delay in the passage of information & some errors in the translation of old languages. But regardless of a 10 year difference in time, the world is now in a better position than before. C-19 failure, Ukraine war failure, even the failure of this rule based order are harbinger of a better world at horizon.
Exactly, as FM of RuF, Sergei Lavrov observed, the US is not agreement capable. The rules apply to vassal states and opponents of the US, not to itself. When leaders in the collective west parrot rules based order they are indicating their subservience to US interests and moreover they don't give a hoot. Just take a look at what's happening on the European continent to see the outcomes.
100% correct: The basis of this so-called "rules-based international law" is the assumption of the dogma of the US (actually the non-accountable and unelected Deep State agencies and hierarchy, or ZIOCON Elites in short) as universal hegemon, and the rest of the world either as subjected vassal states, or enemies yet to be brought to heel. However, reality always trumps dogma.
The American people got a real taste of this during COVID. Leaders dictating lock-downs but out partying every night without obeying ANY of their own mandates. Remember this isn't the USA doing this. It's a bunch of would-be aristocrats in the political/donor class who have hijacked the U.S. Government.
Here in New Zealand, I've twice written to our Foreign Affairs Ministers asking why our government's behaving contrary to the U.N. Charter, and both times they replied - without mentioning the U.N. - that "New Zealand adheres to the International Rules Based System". It's like a way to excuse themselves from accountability. (One of my letters asked the Minister for a "yes/no" answer on whether or not the unilateral US/UK/French missile strikes on Syria in April 2018 - which NZ's government supported - were legal under the U.N. Charter. The other letter asked why NZ's government is so supportive of Navalny, while ignoring Assange, despite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture saying Assange's detention by our allies is arbitrary and psychological torture.)
US can never ever produced its Rules Based Order in black and white because it does not exist. it is simply an Indiana Jones's make it up as we go along rule.
Fantastic efforts! We need to do more of that. Massive public pressure on the elites and public awareness campaigns about this BS. This madness can only be stopped through popular pressure. We need to make our govs go back to international law!! Great Initative of yours!! Consider publishing the letters and answers. Either small magazines or make a homepage and document it. It just has to be findable on the internet and ppl will read and think and connect.
Thanks again Pascal! This time for inviting South African judge Dugard and providing an overdue much-needed concise explanation to answer a vexing question on a lot of our minds- ... ie: what's the difference between International-law; versus American neocon sophistry around. . . A "rules-based International- order"-- which is just fancy doublespeak for "do as I say, not as I do". . . Which, for those of us from the US, sounds a lot like "Animal-house" rules. A disorder, even most juvenile delinquents grow out of. As should a proper geriatric Administration aspiring for reelection to a second term. It is painfully eye-opening to hear judge Dugard list all the International-laws such as the 1977 Geneva Convention, and the one against cluster munitions, which has been a treaty widely accepted amongst so many others-- but stubbornly not the US Congress... Which makes my homeland part of a shortlist of Rogue-Nations... Even as America's neocon Elites continue to cling to their nostalgic notion of "American- exceptionalism". . . Which makes itself exempt from every rule in the book except. . . "MUTUAL-ASSURED-DESTRUCTION" ( or M.A.D.) . . . But let rational autocrats like Putin and XI be forewarned! For I am no longer certain at all, that the deranged and cocky juveniles and Neocon- Autocrats staffing the White-House and the Pentagon, are even willing to abide by that very last and Final Rule-- as solid as uranium.
I like the way this guy calmly refutes Russia's interpretation of international law ignoring all it's efforts to solve a problem peacefully and yet, couches the US invasion of countries halfway around the world as polite transgressions of international law.
THE RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER according to Nury Vittachy 1. The USA rules the world. 2. The USA makes all rules including these rules. 3. No one can know what the rules are, only that they exist. 4. No one is allowed to ask what the rules are. 5. The USA will be in charge of the flexibility provided by the rules’ non-existent nature. 6. Non-western countries must be regularly castigated for not following the rules. 7. Western countries must be regularly praised for following the rules. 8. Alternative rules of governance which work successfully (cf. China, Singapore) must always be derided as “authoritarianism”. 9. Unfair global dominance by the 13% western minority (cf. totalitarianism) must always be referred to as “democracy”. 10. These rules over-ride all other rules, including fundamental justice and the laws of nature.
Brilliantly put! Every time anyone refers to RBO (it's a script) we should stop them right there, on the spot and ask what rules are these and where are they written and who wrote them and who approved them. We can't be talking about something that doesn't even exist to undermine and jeopardize what actually exists: international law.
Thanks so much for sharing story of Gonzalo Lira's imprisonment in Ukraine over TH-cam videos and his attempt to flee the country due to the burden of imprisonment there. This story needs a lot of attention. Hopefully, Gonzalo will make it home to his family in the near future. Gonzalo Lira have USA citizenship and he was jailed in Ukraine for freedom of speach only. His "crime" is his youtube videos were he is not agree with Ukrain goverment current policy.
it’s a piece of sophistry so that we assume it is just a political way of saying international law, and then permit in our naivete their highly illegal actions. because if they said they were doing something that will breach international law, their public might be outraged. but if they said they were doing it to preserve the international “rules based order” their public might assume it means the same as international law and not pay too much scrutiny.
Didn't Russia urge the West and Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreement? Wasn't the Minsk Agreement an attempt to resolve the ongoing civil war in Ukraine according to the norms of IL?
Merkel and Macron said it was a ploy to buy time for Ukraine. (To arm and train them for retaking it by force I assume), why else would they buy time for Ukraine... what difference would it make?
" The rules in the US empire's much touted rules based international order do not apply to the US empire. They are the for thee but not for me kind of rules " Caitlin Johnstone.
"rules based International order" - you play foodball (soccer), and we play sometimes boxing, sometimes baseball, sometimes rugby, sometimes lethwei depending on the situation...
To be fair, we are at least imposing a version of the RBO on women in sports in the west. Men compete against men, women compete against anyone who says they're a woman.
1. The " Rules Based Order " can be very subjective depending on how the country interprets the Rules. 2. Some countries always enforce hegemony to change the selfish rules for their motives.
@@jillfryer6699 The one country at the back, will puppeteer many other countries to stand in front and make the speeches and claims. So hegemony can be enforced by basically any of the 42 countries that are members of NATO, AUKUS, QUAD, as well as any of the many small Pacific Island members of the UN that are effectively under US control.
@@Khayyam-vg9fwThere is an old is/ought argument, and it is starting to look like anyone who holds to your way of thinking is naïve and self-deluding. I prefer to think that law comes from agreement among those who possess relatively similar guns. When the ability to "show growth" at previous rates wanes, those laws become more circumstantial and subject to "interpretation."
@@Khayyam-vg9fw Look at Michael Hudson's work on debt and oligarchies vs centralized authority in the person of a king, going back to Sumer and Mesopotamia. I synthesized law from a gun and law from agreement into law from agreement of those who are relatively equally armed. Sense if present for those who can apprehend it.
"Might makes right". The bully makes the rules unless someone else is stronger than the bully. Only a lawyer could pretend that the US-led NATO has not been incrementally and relentlessly threatening the national security of Russia for thirty years. Only a lawyer could ignore that the President of a superpower has openly declared that he intended to weaken Russia and overthrow her very popular leader in order to bring about "regime change". Only a lawyer could argue that Russia is not entirely justified in fearing for its very survival when all of the other signatories to the Minsk agreements publicly gloated about how they had no intention of keeping their word when they signed up to the agreements because they only wanted to buy time to build up the Ukrainian armed forces to the point where they could pick a fight with the Russians. When the government of the USA swore that it would not advance "one inch" eastwards of the reunified Germany once the Soviets withdrew from the DRR, only a lawyer would argue that the USA did not break its word --- because the US-led NATO advanced HUNDREDS OF MILES miles closer to Moscow as opposed to "one inch". Only a lawyer - or a thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable person (but I repeat myself) - would completely ignore America's orgy of slaughter in Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Somalia - not one of which has ever advanced to the very borders of the USA - while trying to suggest that Russia was not on absolutely solid ground in International Law when she was finally forced to take a stand against a clear and imminent threat to her sovereignty and national security. Lawyers are generally the enemies of justice.
I would add all the propaganda blaming Russia for the election of Donald Trump for 4 years, while Hillary Clinton campaigned on starting a war with Russia. How can you not view the US as your enemy when your people are getting used as a scapegoat by the US for everything under the sun.
In the matter of self-determination by a population, at least Russia conducted referendums in Crimea and the Donbass before annexation took place. That is not true of Israel which exercised unilateral annexation.
To that I respond with a comparison between those Arabs and the ethnic cleansing of Germans from east and west Prussia at the end of WW2. In both cases the genocide was wrong, but you don't get to complain when your people openly sought to commit genocide against victorious opponents. And Arabs have been calling for the genocide of Jews the entire time, even having their version of Barnie calling for kids to grow up to kill the jews.
I actually wrote to the US Embassy in Canberra asking if they could provide me with a link to a document stating the rules of the, "Rules Based International Order," knowing full well there is no such code in existence. Needless to say, in the weeks since my email, there has been no reply. It's just a convenient way to enforce rules the US demands all other nations to follow, or, "rules for thee but not for me!"
This interview is great, Judge Dugard really showed how powerful legal thinking can be in considering international issues. He takes all the double-speak and chess-playing out of it, and brings it all back down to Earth: plain facts, a sense of justice, and the written word and demonstrable actions of States. I thought his reasoning was very clear, like watching someone practice Tai Chi with perfect form!
There's another angle about the United States: If you don't like what it does, it argues (to borrow an advertising slogan from a fast-food restaurant chain that has gone out of business): "You don't know how good it is until you eat some place else". The richest country in human history wants to be praised for being less worse than places far less fortunate, like Russia. Of course Joseph Stalin was horrible, but look what he had to work with, a country from which the serfs had only recently been freed. And, as was said: World War II was won on Amerian arms and Russian bodies. The U.S. ended the war with 2/3 the productive capacity of the planet and an enormous wealth of brainpower from people who had fled Nazi Germany and what did we do with it besides witch-hunting Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer? "We paved paradise and put in a parking lot" (Joni Mitchell)
the US uses the term rules based order, to pretend it is the world police and its peace keepers yet, they are to date the biggest threat to the world. In every single level, climate, clean water, economic and physical security. its use of coups, assassinations, etc in over 86 countries JUST SINCE ww2, and its 400 military bases just circling China, not only is the cause of Chinas military building, but the loss of autonomy of every single country it has conned into building military bases on its land. this guy sounds to worried about his personal safety to say anything seriously truthful concerning america, or israel to be frank, don't blame him, its full of science, law and truth denying lunatics
The problem with UN based international laws is that there are no UN based law enforcement agency. The Rules Based Order is more complete. The Rules are made by the US Congress with it's Constitutional power to define the laws of nations and punish the offenders. And they can use the US Military to enforce those Rules. Anyone on Earth that disagree just has to go to the US courts up to the US Supreme court or face the US military and their military allies.
Dissolution of the USSR has been a damn disaster, America for the most part respected and feared the consequences of its actions during the Cold War, now America is like a bull in china shop. Multi-polar world with multiple power centers in each continent is necessary more than ever. America only cooperate and act nicely when their money on the line or there's serious risk to American lives, it's high time to make them realize their shit fckery around the world will chase them home.
this is an old canard and misses the point. Law does not require police or a specific enforcement mechanism; it does not even require formal government. International law is enforced on an ad hoc basis, depending on circumstances. This can include UN peacekeeping forces. It can also include sanctions or expropriation of assets. More often it involves a combination of diplomatic, political, and domestic legal actions taken by the majority of entirety of nations, using their resources in concert. The US system, as well as any other legal system, has its fair share of rights without remedies and enumerated rights without an enforcement body. Only a small portion of the law is directly enforced by law enforcement agencies. Most law, public or private, is enforced outside of a courtroom, away from people with guns, in negotiations between administrative bodies or counsel.
@@2001abassodyssey "Law does not require police or a specific enforcement mechanism; it does not even require formal government." Except, no. You might not always need police or LEA, but you always need a threat of law enforcement for law to remain relevant. I would refer you to what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the fear of law enforcement vanished from the streets. "International law is enforced on an ad hoc basis, depending on circumstances. " It might be true, my gripe is, it's not enforced on American on even ad hoc basis. Americans have grown this sense of entitlement on being above international laws. "The US system, as well as any other legal system, has its fair share of rights without remedies and enumerated rights without an enforcement body. " America has created international enforcement bodies all over the world when it suits American agenda. They would create/fund agencies like KFOR to punish Serbia, they would create Syrian Defense Force to punish the Syrians and this list long. But Americans run away from any international body that could have any legitimacy to run fingers in America's faces, all the while, use these bodies as a weapons against others. Case in point, ICC, International Maritime Convention, and Convention on Cluster Ammunition. "Only a small portion of the law is directly enforced by law enforcement agencies. Most law, public or private, is enforced outside of a courtroom, away from people with guns, in negotiations between administrative bodies or counsel." American domestic structures are of no concern to me as a non-American.
@f1aziz in that case, we share a desire for strong international law and I reject the "RBO." You seem to be writing from a monist idea that there should be a law enforcement mechanism for international law in order to produce compliance. However, in America, where I received my legal education, the 'no enforcement' trope is used to argue that international law is a joke or does not exist. I certainly don't hold the American or NATO (technically, Serbia was NATO, not just American-though as an IR realist I would accept the proposition they are one and the same) military operations to be enforcement of international law, the way you suggested. But on a practical level, you should consider which international law it is that requires enforcement. The obvious best candidate for this is international criminal law. But, in the extreme example of aggression, sending a police force after a head of state is equivalent to attacking the state itself. Legally, it would violate the Rome Statute's principle of complementarity. Very well, what about human rights, in the multilateral instruments like the ICCPR? Who decides when a right is sufficiently degraded that it requires military intervention against a State to restore "self-determination"-the GA, the security council? Those are not legal bodies, but political ones (even if their actions have legal consequences), and cannot make rulings of law. Human rights are an example of the rights without remedies I was taking about earlier. And this highlights the larger problem that public international law is mostly binding as to nations (the ICJ cannot take jurisdiction otherwise, and where disputes concern individuals, a State must invoke diplomatic protection of its citizen). So any world police force must in fact be a military on a national level. Remember that the UN is only funded by its constituent nations. Lastly, to respond more directly to some of your points: the US law point of mine was directed to OP, who I suspected was voicing the "canard" as I called it on American terms. But I encourage you to take a greater interest in American law, as I have the law of other countries, and despite America's misdeeds. Namely because the international legal system is a hybrid common law/civil law system, and America does have its own particular flavor of common law that has influenced the development of international law. Also because customary international law depends on national practice, and America is one such nation. Whether each nation counts equally, or whether the practice of great powers its weighted more in determining customary international law is an unresolved legal debate. Your point about Katrina is relevant insofar as it concerns criminal law and disaster settings. There are customary legal systems, outside the West which do not have a formal police force as in America, but enforcement takes place on a more social level. Any lawyer will tell you that law has a normative component; courts take custom into account all the time, for example, in issues from trade practice to freedom of expression. This is not to say, of course, that RBO and international law are the same, or American political statements on the RBO have any sort of point. Rather, I am above all against the sort of rigid thinking that makes enforcement of the law into a cartoon of a SWAT kicking down someone's door.
Why does Justice Dugard call Russia's argument regarding its SMO in Ukraine as "bizarre" when Russ said its upholding self-defense efforts of the majority Russian population of eastern oblasts who were being shelled and bombed by Azov and other neo-Nazi militia and the Ukr army for eight years since the US-engineered Maidan coup toppled the elected government of Ukraine?
Because it is based on a stretch of the legal imagination. Russia refused to recognize the two Donbas Republics for 8 years, then suddenly does so, and 5 days later goes to war (SMO) in the name of helping them to self-defend. That is, from a legal standpoint, quite extreme. The logic holds, but it is extreme.
Well the circumstances at the time are an important factor in how it unfolded. Ukraine had escalated the bombings quite a lot the months before and amassed troops close by. So that is something to take into account, since the Russian speaking population after 8 years of bombings expected a devastating attack and turned to Russia. Who replied that certain conditions had to be met so they actually upheld international law. And that is what then happened and that opened the doors for Russia to act. So the emergency of the situation do give that a legitimate condition. Call it preemptive strike, like what happened sometime in 1800 in a conflict involving USA. That incidence has been referred to multiple times
This is yet another example of what language winds up being used for in power interest scenarios: rationalization of brute force real politic. Law is based on coherent concepts, like jurisdiction, precedent and impartiality. These must be self-consistent, even if only in appearance, up to the level of the nation-state. But once you get to the international stage, law breaks down into sheer power politics dressed up in kindergarten-level language. We are still dealing with the zero-sum mentality that led to WWI, seemingly with little to no progress as a species.
Rus-Ukr and Israel are false equivalence given the history of both. Donetsk's and Crimea are arguably Russian territories for centuries--going back to the Kievan Rus. The Minsk Accords also provide a legal underpinning for Russia's position. The 20th C constructs of places of territorial sovereignty ( eg settler colonization of Israel) does not rise to the same level of legal legitimacy. Instead, this Rules based order is an attempt to legitimize these political positions that are about might makes right.
It's a bit frustrating when listening to an excellent guest where you dont want to miss a word he says, that sometimes it is very hard for a far westerner to quite understand this very strong British accent. I dont think they realize how thick their accent is and some words or phrases just come out in a blur. Even the subtitles often don't get it right. Otherwise, a wonderful guest and topic of discussion which we need to be having.👍👍
Thanks to you and your guests for this valuable content. At first I thought the channel name was ironic since you have a strong point of view, but I get it now
0:00: 📚 Professor John Dugard discusses the use of the catchphrase 'rules-based international order' in place of international law. 5:18: 🌍 The United States is not a party to several important international conventions and prefers to interpret and adhere to international law on its own terms. 10:19: 🌍 The United States has a double standard approach towards international law, supporting the International Criminal Court in some cases but condemning it in others. 15:35: 🌍 The international community has recognized the sovereignty of Israel over the Golden Heights and East Jerusalem, while condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea. 21:31: 🌍 International powers like Russia, China, and the United States generally do not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, except in cases involving their national interests. 25:42: 🌍 The discussion focuses on Russia's interpretation of international law and the mechanisms for creating it. 31:11: 🌍 The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is binding on states that have signed it but influences the behavior of other states. Recap by Tammy AI
Because as of 17 July, 2018, aggression is now a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 8bis. The charges are colorable under its plain language: Putin has initiated and executed (if not planned and prepared), from a position of control over the Russian state, most of the actions listed under Art. 8bis(2) (e.g. invasion of territory and military occupation; bombardment; blockade). It is irrelevant if this definition could apply to other individuals who had committed similar such acts before 2018. The Court always contemplates the political nature of its actions, and likely considered all factors. It probably decided that because most of the world agreed at the very least that Russia should stop its military operations, and most furthermore spoke out against it as a violation of international law, it could safely experiment with the first use of Art. 8bis to charge Putin, advancing international jurisprudence and its own credibility with the least friction possible. The Court is well aware that the U.S. generally has tried to weaken it as much as possible (the Pentagon even refuses to share evidence of potential Russian war crimes); therefore, if it could consolidate recent advances in the law without U.S. obstruction, the opportunity was too good to pass up. Of course, I am skeptical of how well the choice will really play out and it certainly has political downsides--but the positive reasons for the choice are pretty apparent if you are familiar with the work of the Court and the problems facing it.
At least there was a referendum in Crimea and the Donbass states before they were annexed by Russia. Was this the case in areas of Palestine annexed by Israel?
Could you please do the courtesy to your guests to give the reference to their articles/books you mention, either in the description or in a pinned comment?
There is ‘rule of law’ and there is ‘pick and choose which rules you want to recognize and when it is convenient.’ Rule of law is the international order. Rules based order is selective, flexible rule-adherence. The former is what team-players do, the latter is what superego manipulative control freaks (who don’t see themselves as part of a team) do.
If only the professor put his mike nearer unable to hear some of his words clearly while the host is perfectly clear. If I raise the volume then the host is too loud.
Contrary to the judge's astounding statement that "whataboutism" is not a recognized legal principle, it is in fact a foundational principle of jurisprudence, stemming directly from the core concept of the legitimate rule of law, which is its equal and universal application. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Putin did not argue that it was OK for Russia to "break the law" because the US (and UK and France) had openly done it, but the lack of ANY action against the US for doing so set a precedent, under the principle of the universal rule of law, for intervention based upon the Western arguments of "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" which thereby rendered such actions legal. He also had a number of other valid legal arguments under the actual written law, which is what he presented in his speech announcing the SMO. In any case, as a non-signatory, the Russian Federation is no more bound by international law and courts than the US - or China.
The US endorses the decisions of the ICC. It doesn't appeal to "rules based order" in this case even though it is not a signatory of the ICC. So I'm not I complete agreement with the arguement put forward here. I think "The US makes the rules and orders others to follow them" is about right.
The US opposes the ICC at almost every turn. It famously "unsigned" the Treaty of Rome; it notoriously has concluded SOFAs with almost every nation on Earth; it has refused to share evidence with the Court; all this in addition to the "Hague Invasion Act" Judge Dugard mentioned. Pretty language from the Secretary of State means nothing de facto, and while (de jure) "endorsing the decisions of the ICC" would never be a legal question, were a court to consider the US position for some reason, it would almost certainly determine that US laws and actions do not demonstrate a general support. Besides, even considering the statements alone, to the extent that the US has supported the Putin warrant, it has condemned most other investigations by the Court, such as the Palestinian investigation. Support for a court is not a menu; that is not the nature of the law, nor of treaties (which are a source of international law). The US either supports the entire jurisdiction of the Court, as long as it has not acted plainly ultra vires, or it does not.
International Rules based order is very simple: it's as it is, the de facto situation. The US wants to maintain the favorable situation they enjoy as hegemon. Listen to people and take them at their words, not what you think they wanted to say. Listen carefuly and give words their true meaning. That's all.
Here is what I have observed about Shelly Cooper. Rule of the jungle until she gets in a pickle or feels threatened then it’s rule of the land. What a crock!!!!!!!
People can talk about law all day long, day after day, year after year, but if they don't have the means to enforce it, they're simply wasting their breath. Who do we expect to enforce "International Law"?
There are few concepts that come to mind on how to rule the world: 1. Think Big 2. Stimulate Cognitive Dissonance 3. Create rules ie an intellectual maze to prevent the population to awaken to the false Paradigm. It sounds very simple and effective to me.
It was "rule of law" for a while but they never follow their own laws so they had to change it. "Rules based order" is literally synonymous with tyranny.
Not sure I'm any the wiser after this one NS. I think my confusion is more to do with the absurd state of the geopolitical situation rather than the explnation by Judge Dugard. So WWII got us the UN and geneva conventions. WIll it take another such dire precipace to get the superpowers around a table and agree to be bound and indeed to bind each other to at least the basic tenet's of a legal system. Doesn't have to be complicated, in fact even a set of principals would suffice to begin with. 1. Don't take other peoples stuff! 2. Everyone limits standing military below a set level. 3. Enable everyone to see everyone else's military capability. 4. If violence breaks out, all parties will do everything in their power to deprive the combatants of weapons and ammunition.. 5. Economic Sanctions should never drive a population to famine or disease. If we could get them five in place we'd be in good fettle.
Perhaps the simplest way to understand the Rules Based Order is to try and spot differences between US politics now and those of Germany in the 1930s. The most distressing part to witness from here in Britain is the destruction of fiscal accountability which structures society and its replacement with deceitfully contrived debt on the one hand and a proliferation of slush funds on the other. The last person to get in on the act has been the Archbishop of Canterbury who has arranged out of Church finances a slush fund for ‘reparations for slavery’ in the thinnest slice conceivable to his either duped or else restricted understanding.
Hmm - para-law as a way to pivot away from actual law by supplanting it with their own self-serving rules. This is how the judicial system worked in the american south to subvert the rights of black people all the way into the 1960's, if not the present day. It adopted the appearance of law as understood in the north, but it was applied in a completely biased way, subject to the whim of local authorities. In this way, slavery persisted through convict leasing and debt peonage (not really known or understood that well by northern populations) up until fdr finally dealt with it in 1942. It was a way for Southern jurisdictions to have their corrupt cake and eat it too (at the expense of freedom, justice, and equality). In essence, a two tiered system of justice, the legacy of which Americans have been struggling to deconstruct to this day. To be clear, most Americans want the government to follow international law. The double standard is deployed to serve the plutocrats.
What is the purpose of having laws if the most powerful nation not recognising international law and basically because it is the one country that violates those laws.
Simply put the "Rules Based Order" is something US makes the Rule as a world hegemony of law & order but doesn't need to abide by the same law.
It is similar to dictatorships on a world wide scale.
On a smaller scale, it is referred to as "rules for thee but not for me"
I look forward to the day when everyone is able to stand up to this bully class imposing themselves on America and around the world.
@@sword7872
You're correct.
The day that you've been looking for started in 2012, with the end of an era as the Mayan Calendar proclaimed. Not just the Mayan calendar ended on 2012 but also a so called "Kali Yuga" by the Indian's standard ended in the same year. According to Indian epics, Krishna just before his death in 3102 BCE, told, behold, you'll see a period of 5124 years of Kali (unjust world) upon you.{Note: This period is the period of the Jews}. After that, a period of Satya Yuga ((Justified world) will be born. Some speculated there might be some delay in the passage of information & some errors in the translation of old languages. But regardless of a 10 year difference in time, the world is now in a better position than before. C-19 failure, Ukraine war failure, even the failure of this rule based order are harbinger of a better world at horizon.
Exactly, as FM of RuF, Sergei Lavrov observed, the US is not agreement capable. The rules apply to vassal states and opponents of the US, not to itself. When leaders in the collective west parrot rules based order they are indicating their subservience to US interests and moreover they don't give a hoot. Just take a look at what's happening on the European continent to see the outcomes.
100% correct: The basis of this so-called "rules-based international law" is the assumption of the dogma of the US (actually the non-accountable and unelected Deep State agencies and hierarchy, or ZIOCON Elites in short) as universal hegemon, and the rest of the world either as subjected vassal states, or enemies yet to be brought to heel. However, reality always trumps dogma.
@@robbinghook3571 Go away (or words to that effect). You're not helping.
So true. The US like to appeal to law and order and democracy without being bound by anything beside its own interests.
This kind of mentality is a.k.a HYPOCRITE
US: my rules apply to you but yours don’t apply to me. I am an exception no matter what. We must stop the madnesses of the US.
The American people got a real taste of this during COVID. Leaders dictating lock-downs but out partying every night without obeying ANY of their own mandates.
Remember this isn't the USA doing this. It's a bunch of would-be aristocrats in the political/donor class who have hijacked the U.S. Government.
Here in New Zealand, I've twice written to our Foreign Affairs Ministers asking why our government's behaving contrary to the U.N. Charter, and both times they replied - without mentioning the U.N. - that "New Zealand adheres to the International Rules Based System". It's like a way to excuse themselves from accountability.
(One of my letters asked the Minister for a "yes/no" answer on whether or not the unilateral US/UK/French missile strikes on Syria in April 2018 - which NZ's government supported - were legal under the U.N. Charter. The other letter asked why NZ's government is so supportive of Navalny, while ignoring Assange, despite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture saying Assange's detention by our allies is arbitrary and psychological torture.)
US can never ever produced its Rules Based Order in black and white because it does not exist. it is simply an Indiana Jones's make it up as we go along rule.
Fantastic efforts! We need to do more of that. Massive public pressure on the elites and public awareness campaigns about this BS. This madness can only be stopped through popular pressure. We need to make our govs go back to international law!! Great Initative of yours!! Consider publishing the letters and answers. Either small magazines or make a homepage and document it. It just has to be findable on the internet and ppl will read and think and connect.
Timothy, I applaud tour efforts to elicit greater transparency from your government, another US vassal.
Exactly my thinking also, but ALL the muppets are either too ignorant ,or to scared to ask similar questions.
In other words, we are all under global governance and rules replace law.
Thanks again Pascal! This time for inviting South African judge Dugard and providing an overdue much-needed concise explanation to answer a vexing question on a lot of our minds- ...
ie: what's the difference between International-law; versus American neocon sophistry around. . .
A "rules-based International-
order"-- which is just fancy doublespeak for "do as I say, not as I do". . .
Which, for those of us from the US, sounds a lot like "Animal-house" rules. A disorder, even most juvenile delinquents grow out of. As should a proper geriatric Administration aspiring for reelection to a second term.
It is painfully eye-opening to hear judge Dugard list all the International-laws such as the 1977 Geneva Convention, and the one against cluster munitions, which has been a treaty widely accepted amongst so many others-- but stubbornly not the US Congress...
Which makes my homeland part of a shortlist of Rogue-Nations...
Even as America's neocon Elites continue to cling to their nostalgic notion of
"American- exceptionalism". . .
Which makes itself exempt from every rule in the book except. . .
"MUTUAL-ASSURED-DESTRUCTION" ( or M.A.D.) . . .
But let rational autocrats like Putin and XI be forewarned!
For I am no longer certain at all, that the deranged and cocky juveniles and Neocon- Autocrats staffing the White-House and the Pentagon, are even willing to abide by that very last and Final Rule-- as solid as uranium.
Thank you! That‘s exactly the point!
I like the way this guy calmly refutes Russia's interpretation of international law ignoring all it's efforts to solve a problem peacefully and yet, couches the US invasion of countries halfway around the world as polite transgressions of international law.
THE RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER according to Nury Vittachy
1. The USA rules the world.
2. The USA makes all rules including these rules.
3. No one can know what the rules are, only that they exist.
4. No one is allowed to ask what the rules are.
5. The USA will be in charge of the flexibility provided by the rules’ non-existent nature.
6. Non-western countries must be regularly castigated for not following the rules.
7. Western countries must be regularly praised for following the rules.
8. Alternative rules of governance which work successfully (cf. China, Singapore) must always be derided as “authoritarianism”.
9. Unfair global dominance by the 13% western minority (cf. totalitarianism) must always be referred to as “democracy”.
10. These rules over-ride all other rules, including fundamental justice and the laws of nature.
Brilliantly put! Every time anyone refers to RBO (it's a script) we should stop them right there, on the spot and ask what rules are these and where are they written and who wrote them and who approved them. We can't be talking about something that doesn't even exist to undermine and jeopardize what actually exists: international law.
"Rules Based Order" means - countries can play but must never to allowed to win.
It also means don't follow what the UN charter laid out its rules. Follow the rules inscribed in my law book suited for the US only.
It also means "We're making this shit up as we go along."
Thanks so much for sharing story of Gonzalo Lira's imprisonment in Ukraine over TH-cam videos and his attempt to flee the country due to the burden of imprisonment there. This story needs a lot of attention. Hopefully, Gonzalo will make it home to his family in the near future. Gonzalo Lira have USA citizenship and he was jailed in Ukraine for freedom of speach only. His "crime" is his youtube videos were he is not agree with Ukrain goverment current policy.
RIP Gonzalo Lira, unfortunately.
it’s a piece of sophistry so that we assume it is just a political way of saying international law, and then permit in our naivete their highly illegal actions. because if they said they were doing something that will breach international law, their public might be outraged. but if they said they were doing it to preserve the international “rules based order” their public might assume it means the same as international law and not pay too much scrutiny.
Didn't Russia urge the West and Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreement? Wasn't the Minsk Agreement an attempt to resolve the ongoing civil war in Ukraine according to the norms of IL?
Merkel and Macron said it was a ploy to buy time for Ukraine. (To arm and train them for retaking it by force I assume), why else would they buy time for Ukraine... what difference would it make?
" The rules in the US empire's much touted rules based international order do not apply to the US empire. They are the for thee but not for me kind of rules " Caitlin Johnstone.
"rules based International order" - you play foodball (soccer), and we play sometimes boxing, sometimes baseball, sometimes rugby, sometimes lethwei depending on the situation...
To be fair, we are at least imposing a version of the RBO on women in sports in the west. Men compete against men, women compete against anyone who says they're a woman.
1. The " Rules Based Order " can be very subjective depending on how the country interprets the Rules.
2. Some countries always enforce hegemony to change the selfish rules for their motives.
Some? There is only one. One.
@@jillfryer6699 The one country at the back, will puppeteer many other countries to stand in front and make the speeches and claims. So hegemony can be enforced by basically any of the 42 countries that are members of NATO, AUKUS, QUAD, as well as any of the many small Pacific Island members of the UN that are effectively under US control.
I order you to obey my rules. And I can change the rules midway during the game, and at any time when it is not in my interest.
Everybody must obey the rules.
I'll tell you what the rules are as we go along.
Bingo!
The law comes from the barrel of a gun. Sad but true.
No, bullets come from the barrel of a gun. The law comes (or should come, otherwise it is not law) from reasonable discussion and agreement.
@@Khayyam-vg9fwThere is an old is/ought argument, and it is starting to look like anyone who holds to your way of thinking is naïve and self-deluding. I prefer to think that law comes from agreement among those who possess relatively similar guns. When the ability to "show growth" at previous rates wanes, those laws become more circumstantial and subject to "interpretation."
@@dsm5d723 Much verbiage, little sense.
@@Khayyam-vg9fw Look at Michael Hudson's work on debt and oligarchies vs centralized authority in the person of a king, going back to Sumer and Mesopotamia. I synthesized law from a gun and law from agreement into law from agreement of those who are relatively equally armed. Sense if present for those who can apprehend it.
@@dsm5d723 Word salad. Lay off the drugs.
"Might makes right".
The bully makes the rules unless someone else is stronger than the bully.
Only a lawyer could pretend that the US-led NATO has not been incrementally and relentlessly threatening the national security of Russia for thirty years.
Only a lawyer could ignore that the President of a superpower has openly declared that he intended to weaken Russia and overthrow her very popular leader in order to bring about "regime change".
Only a lawyer could argue that Russia is not entirely justified in fearing for its very survival when all of the other signatories to the Minsk agreements publicly gloated about how they had no intention of keeping their word when they signed up to the agreements because they only wanted to buy time to build up the Ukrainian armed forces to the point where they could pick a fight with the Russians.
When the government of the USA swore that it would not advance "one inch" eastwards of the reunified Germany once the Soviets withdrew from the DRR, only a lawyer would argue that the USA did not break its word --- because the US-led NATO advanced HUNDREDS OF MILES miles closer to Moscow as opposed to "one inch".
Only a lawyer - or a thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable person (but I repeat myself) - would completely ignore America's orgy of slaughter in Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Somalia - not one of which has ever advanced to the very borders of the USA - while trying to suggest that Russia was not on absolutely solid ground in International Law when she was finally forced to take a stand against a clear and imminent threat to her sovereignty and national security.
Lawyers are generally the enemies of justice.
Very well said 👏👏👏
Bingo! You said it best. We cannot trust lawyers.
I would add all the propaganda blaming Russia for the election of Donald Trump for 4 years, while Hillary Clinton campaigned on starting a war with Russia. How can you not view the US as your enemy when your people are getting used as a scapegoat by the US for everything under the sun.
Rules based Order is "Law" suitable for NATO
And the UN makes the rules?
The US controls both NATO and the UN.@@kitcat4512
No even NATO follow US order
The North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation!
Exceptionalism.
"rules based order" means "selfish political hypocrisy".
It means might is right.
In the matter of self-determination by a population, at least Russia conducted referendums in Crimea and the Donbass before annexation took place. That is not true of Israel which exercised unilateral annexation.
To that I respond with a comparison between those Arabs and the ethnic cleansing of Germans from east and west Prussia at the end of WW2. In both cases the genocide was wrong, but you don't get to complain when your people openly sought to commit genocide against victorious opponents. And Arabs have been calling for the genocide of Jews the entire time, even having their version of Barnie calling for kids to grow up to kill the jews.
I actually wrote to the US Embassy in Canberra asking if they could provide me with a link to a document stating the rules of the, "Rules Based International Order," knowing full well there is no such code in existence. Needless to say, in the weeks since my email, there has been no reply. It's just a convenient way to enforce rules the US demands all other nations to follow, or, "rules for thee but not for me!"
Rule based order could be interpreted as "do as we say, not as we do!"
Thanks!
Thank you so much! Your support means so much! Wish you all the best!
This interview is great, Judge Dugard really showed how powerful legal thinking can be in considering international issues. He takes all the double-speak and chess-playing out of it, and brings it all back down to Earth: plain facts, a sense of justice, and the written word and demonstrable actions of States. I thought his reasoning was very clear, like watching someone practice Tai Chi with perfect form!
Our rules, your orders, or bombs shall fall upon you.
Thank you Pascal, you asked all the right questions.
Rules-based order used by the West similar to Don Corleone’s saying “I will make an offer he cannot refuse” or “you are unlucky”
There's another angle about the United States: If you don't like what it does, it argues (to borrow an advertising slogan from a fast-food restaurant chain that has gone out of business): "You don't know how good it is until you eat some place else".
The richest country in human history wants to be praised for being less worse than places far less fortunate, like Russia. Of course Joseph Stalin was horrible, but look what he had to work with, a country from which the serfs had only recently been freed. And, as was said: World War II was won on Amerian arms and Russian bodies. The U.S. ended the war with 2/3 the productive capacity of the planet and an enormous wealth of brainpower from people who had fled Nazi Germany and what did we do with it besides witch-hunting Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer? "We paved paradise and put in a parking lot" (Joni Mitchell)
Its the US Rules of International Disorder of perpetual wars and conflict since the end of WW2.
Rules Based Order is the rule of the strong by the strong
Thanks!
the rules based order as I see it. America USA makes the Rules and the rest of the world obey their orders.
the US uses the term rules based order, to pretend it is the world police and its peace keepers yet, they are to date the biggest threat to the world. In every single level, climate, clean water, economic and physical security. its use of coups, assassinations, etc in over 86 countries JUST SINCE ww2, and its 400 military bases just circling China, not only is the cause of Chinas military building, but the loss of autonomy of every single country it has conned into building military bases on its land. this guy sounds to worried about his personal safety to say anything seriously truthful concerning america, or israel to be frank, don't blame him, its full of science, law and truth denying lunatics
The problem with UN based international laws is that there are no UN based law enforcement agency. The Rules Based Order is more complete. The Rules are made by the US Congress with it's Constitutional power to define the laws of nations and punish the offenders. And they can use the US Military to enforce those Rules. Anyone on Earth that disagree just has to go to the US courts up to the US Supreme court or face the US military and their military allies.
Dissolution of the USSR has been a damn disaster, America for the most part respected and feared the consequences of its actions during the Cold War, now America is like a bull in china shop. Multi-polar world with multiple power centers in each continent is necessary more than ever. America only cooperate and act nicely when their money on the line or there's serious risk to American lives, it's high time to make them realize their shit fckery around the world will chase them home.
this is an old canard and misses the point. Law does not require police or a specific enforcement mechanism; it does not even require formal government. International law is enforced on an ad hoc basis, depending on circumstances. This can include UN peacekeeping forces. It can also include sanctions or expropriation of assets. More often it involves a combination of diplomatic, political, and domestic legal actions taken by the majority of entirety of nations, using their resources in concert. The US system, as well as any other legal system, has its fair share of rights without remedies and enumerated rights without an enforcement body. Only a small portion of the law is directly enforced by law enforcement agencies. Most law, public or private, is enforced outside of a courtroom, away from people with guns, in negotiations between administrative bodies or counsel.
@@2001abassodyssey "Law does not require police or a specific enforcement mechanism; it does not even require formal government."
Except, no. You might not always need police or LEA, but you always need a threat of law enforcement for law to remain relevant. I would refer you to what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the fear of law enforcement vanished from the streets.
"International law is enforced on an ad hoc basis, depending on circumstances. "
It might be true, my gripe is, it's not enforced on American on even ad hoc basis. Americans have grown this sense of entitlement on being above international laws.
"The US system, as well as any other legal system, has its fair share of rights without remedies and enumerated rights without an enforcement body. "
America has created international enforcement bodies all over the world when it suits American agenda. They would create/fund agencies like KFOR to punish Serbia, they would create Syrian Defense Force to punish the Syrians and this list long.
But Americans run away from any international body that could have any legitimacy to run fingers in America's faces, all the while, use these bodies as a weapons against others. Case in point, ICC, International Maritime Convention, and Convention on Cluster Ammunition.
"Only a small portion of the law is directly enforced by law enforcement agencies. Most law, public or private, is enforced outside of a courtroom, away from people with guns, in negotiations between administrative bodies or counsel."
American domestic structures are of no concern to me as a non-American.
@f1aziz in that case, we share a desire for strong international law and I reject the "RBO." You seem to be writing from a monist idea that there should be a law enforcement mechanism for international law in order to produce compliance. However, in America, where I received my legal education, the 'no enforcement' trope is used to argue that international law is a joke or does not exist. I certainly don't hold the American or NATO (technically, Serbia was NATO, not just American-though as an IR realist I would accept the proposition they are one and the same) military operations to be enforcement of international law, the way you suggested.
But on a practical level, you should consider which international law it is that requires enforcement. The obvious best candidate for this is international criminal law. But, in the extreme example of aggression, sending a police force after a head of state is equivalent to attacking the state itself. Legally, it would violate the Rome Statute's principle of complementarity. Very well, what about human rights, in the multilateral instruments like the ICCPR? Who decides when a right is sufficiently degraded that it requires military intervention against a State to restore "self-determination"-the GA, the security council? Those are not legal bodies, but political ones (even if their actions have legal consequences), and cannot make rulings of law. Human rights are an example of the rights without remedies I was taking about earlier. And this highlights the larger problem that public international law is mostly binding as to nations (the ICJ cannot take jurisdiction otherwise, and where disputes concern individuals, a State must invoke diplomatic protection of its citizen). So any world police force must in fact be a military on a national level. Remember that the UN is only funded by its constituent nations.
Lastly, to respond more directly to some of your points: the US law point of mine was directed to OP, who I suspected was voicing the "canard" as I called it on American terms. But I encourage you to take a greater interest in American law, as I have the law of other countries, and despite America's misdeeds. Namely because the international legal system is a hybrid common law/civil law system, and America does have its own particular flavor of common law that has influenced the development of international law. Also because customary international law depends on national practice, and America is one such nation. Whether each nation counts equally, or whether the practice of great powers its weighted more in determining customary international law is an unresolved legal debate. Your point about Katrina is relevant insofar as it concerns criminal law and disaster settings. There are customary legal systems, outside the West which do not have a formal police force as in America, but enforcement takes place on a more social level. Any lawyer will tell you that law has a normative component; courts take custom into account all the time, for example, in issues from trade practice to freedom of expression. This is not to say, of course, that RBO and international law are the same, or American political statements on the RBO have any sort of point. Rather, I am above all against the sort of rigid thinking that makes enforcement of the law into a cartoon of a SWAT kicking down someone's door.
@@2001abassodyssey Thank you for the detailed response, I will have to sleep over and internalize it.
Why does Justice Dugard call Russia's argument regarding its SMO in Ukraine as "bizarre" when Russ said its upholding self-defense efforts of the majority Russian population of eastern oblasts who were being shelled and bombed by Azov and other neo-Nazi militia and the Ukr army for eight years since the US-engineered Maidan coup toppled the elected government of Ukraine?
Because it is based on a stretch of the legal imagination. Russia refused to recognize the two Donbas Republics for 8 years, then suddenly does so, and 5 days later goes to war (SMO) in the name of helping them to self-defend. That is, from a legal standpoint, quite extreme. The logic holds, but it is extreme.
They weren't ready to defend them militarily at the time.
Well the circumstances at the time are an important factor in how it unfolded. Ukraine had escalated the bombings quite a lot the months before and amassed troops close by. So that is something to take into account, since the Russian speaking population after 8 years of bombings expected a devastating attack and turned to Russia. Who replied that certain conditions had to be met so they actually upheld international law. And that is what then happened and that opened the doors for Russia to act. So the emergency of the situation do give that a legitimate condition. Call it preemptive strike, like what happened sometime in 1800 in a conflict involving USA. That incidence has been referred to multiple times
This is yet another example of what language winds up being used for in power interest scenarios: rationalization of brute force real politic. Law is based on coherent concepts, like jurisdiction, precedent and impartiality. These must be self-consistent, even if only in appearance, up to the level of the nation-state. But once you get to the international stage, law breaks down into sheer power politics dressed up in kindergarten-level language. We are still dealing with the zero-sum mentality that led to WWI, seemingly with little to no progress as a species.
Thank you Professor's Dugard, Lottaz. Best wishes.
Rus-Ukr and Israel are false equivalence given the history of both. Donetsk's and Crimea are arguably Russian territories for centuries--going back to the Kievan Rus. The Minsk Accords also provide a legal underpinning for Russia's position. The 20th C constructs of places of territorial sovereignty ( eg settler colonization of Israel) does not rise to the same level of legal legitimacy. Instead, this Rules based order is an attempt to legitimize these political positions that are about might makes right.
Rules based order means 'we make the rules everyone else has to follow'!?!
Rules based order = ZOG boot on your neck. 😮
A very important conversation! Thank you for pointing out American failure to American political hypocrisy.
It's a bit frustrating when listening to an excellent guest where you dont want to miss a word he says, that sometimes it is very hard for a far westerner to quite understand this very strong British accent. I dont think they realize how thick their accent is and some words or phrases just come out in a blur. Even the subtitles often don't get it right. Otherwise, a wonderful guest and topic of discussion which we need to be having.👍👍
layman term is: Do as i said not what I do
Everybody must obey the rules.
I'll tell you what the rules are as we go along.
Thanks to you and your guests for this valuable content.
At first I thought the channel name was ironic since you have a strong point of view, but I get it now
0:00: 📚 Professor John Dugard discusses the use of the catchphrase 'rules-based international order' in place of international law.
5:18: 🌍 The United States is not a party to several important international conventions and prefers to interpret and adhere to international law on its own terms.
10:19: 🌍 The United States has a double standard approach towards international law, supporting the International Criminal Court in some cases but condemning it in others.
15:35: 🌍 The international community has recognized the sovereignty of Israel over the Golden Heights and East Jerusalem, while condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea.
21:31: 🌍 International powers like Russia, China, and the United States generally do not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, except in cases involving their national interests.
25:42: 🌍 The discussion focuses on Russia's interpretation of international law and the mechanisms for creating it.
31:11: 🌍 The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is binding on states that have signed it but influences the behavior of other states.
Recap by Tammy AI
The so-called "rules based order" is made in the USA by it finest "lawyers" for its' greediest warmongers. 🤑
Why has the icc charged Putin for trumped up charges?
Because as of 17 July, 2018, aggression is now a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 8bis. The charges are colorable under its plain language: Putin has initiated and executed (if not planned and prepared), from a position of control over the Russian state, most of the actions listed under Art. 8bis(2) (e.g. invasion of territory and military occupation; bombardment; blockade). It is irrelevant if this definition could apply to other individuals who had committed similar such acts before 2018.
The Court always contemplates the political nature of its actions, and likely considered all factors. It probably decided that because most of the world agreed at the very least that Russia should stop its military operations, and most furthermore spoke out against it as a violation of international law, it could safely experiment with the first use of Art. 8bis to charge Putin, advancing international jurisprudence and its own credibility with the least friction possible. The Court is well aware that the U.S. generally has tried to weaken it as much as possible (the Pentagon even refuses to share evidence of potential Russian war crimes); therefore, if it could consolidate recent advances in the law without U.S. obstruction, the opportunity was too good to pass up. Of course, I am skeptical of how well the choice will really play out and it certainly has political downsides--but the positive reasons for the choice are pretty apparent if you are familiar with the work of the Court and the problems facing it.
The UN seems like a international bureaucracy providing jobs to create a facade that something is happening but is just careerism.
At least there was a referendum in Crimea and the Donbass states before they were annexed by Russia. Was this the case in areas of Palestine annexed by Israel?
Mafia makes laws based on their interest
The full name is "America's rule based order"
USA makes the old Soviet Union look like beginners!
Rules of The Hegemonists
Thank you...your podcast added so much to my understanding to the complexities of the geopolitical issues.
Great interview, thankyou
Rules based order...(translation) do as I say, not as do...because I said so.
Everybody must obey the rules.
I'll tell you what the rules are as we go along.
By the "Rules based order", any mafia member on the earth should agree， The gangs know exactly what it is.
My ex-prof in SA! Fond memories! Brilliant man. Excellent legal mind.
It's a pity that Professor Dugard's audio was not so good.
Nicer name for US imperialism.
Fancy name = “Rules Based Order”.
Actuality = Rules of the jungle.
It has always been a con job to circumvent the established laws
Could you please do the courtesy to your guests to give the reference to their articles/books you mention, either in the description or in a pinned comment?
There is ‘rule of law’ and there is ‘pick and choose which rules you want to recognize and when it is convenient.’
Rule of law is the international order. Rules based order is selective, flexible rule-adherence. The former is what team-players do, the latter is what superego manipulative control freaks (who don’t see themselves as part of a team) do.
Rules based order sounds like cowboys government; thanks you pascal for this extremely valuable interview 👍👌
If only the professor put his mike nearer unable to hear some of his words clearly while the host is perfectly clear. If I raise the volume then the host is too loud.
Thanks for some sanity in the insanity. My translation for the "rules based order" is "rules for thee and not for me."
Rules based international order = international order based on american's rules.
Contrary to the judge's astounding statement that "whataboutism" is not a recognized legal principle, it is in fact a foundational principle of jurisprudence, stemming directly from the core concept of the legitimate rule of law, which is its equal and universal application.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Putin did not argue that it was OK for Russia to "break the law" because the US (and UK and France) had openly done it, but the lack of ANY action against the US for doing so set a precedent, under the principle of the universal rule of law, for intervention based upon the Western arguments of "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" which thereby rendered such actions legal.
He also had a number of other valid legal arguments under the actual written law, which is what he presented in his speech announcing the SMO.
In any case, as a non-signatory, the Russian Federation is no more bound by international law and courts than the US - or China.
Rules based order = might makes right
"We apply laws for our enemies; we interpret laws for our friends"
On the positive side, How about inviting Dr. Cornel West?
Any legislation which can be ignored without consequence, is utterly pointless.
It's a rules based order that changes at the whim or those it suits?
The US endorses the decisions of the ICC. It doesn't appeal to "rules based order" in this case even though it is not a signatory of the ICC. So I'm not I complete agreement with the arguement put forward here. I think "The US makes the rules and orders others to follow them" is about right.
The US opposes the ICC at almost every turn. It famously "unsigned" the Treaty of Rome; it notoriously has concluded SOFAs with almost every nation on Earth; it has refused to share evidence with the Court; all this in addition to the "Hague Invasion Act" Judge Dugard mentioned. Pretty language from the Secretary of State means nothing de facto, and while (de jure) "endorsing the decisions of the ICC" would never be a legal question, were a court to consider the US position for some reason, it would almost certainly determine that US laws and actions do not demonstrate a general support. Besides, even considering the statements alone, to the extent that the US has supported the Putin warrant, it has condemned most other investigations by the Court, such as the Palestinian investigation. Support for a court is not a menu; that is not the nature of the law, nor of treaties (which are a source of international law). The US either supports the entire jurisdiction of the Court, as long as it has not acted plainly ultra vires, or it does not.
International Rules based order is very simple: it's as it is, the de facto situation. The US wants to maintain the favorable situation they enjoy as hegemon. Listen to people and take them at their words, not what you think they wanted to say. Listen carefuly and give words their true meaning. That's all.
Here is what I have observed about Shelly Cooper. Rule of the jungle until she gets in a pickle or feels threatened then it’s rule of the land. What a crock!!!!!!!
Rules for you not for me….
A lot of time U.S.A. didn’t sign the agreement itself, but blamed others….
People can talk about law all day long, day after day, year after year, but if they don't have the means to enforce it, they're simply wasting their breath.
Who do we expect to enforce "International Law"?
Those who are signed up to, follow and are bound by it.
In this scenario the U-_S has no role to play as it doesn't do that.
UN Security Council. Is the only organization that can enforce shit internationally.
Please do a sound check next time. The audio on this was bad. So bad that it was inaudible at times.
There are few concepts that come to mind on how to rule the world:
1. Think Big
2. Stimulate Cognitive Dissonance
3. Create rules ie an intellectual maze to prevent the population to awaken to the false Paradigm.
It sounds very simple and effective to me.
It was "rule of law" for a while but they never follow their own laws so they had to change it. "Rules based order" is literally synonymous with tyranny.
Not sure I'm any the wiser after this one NS. I think my confusion is more to do with the absurd state of the geopolitical situation rather than the explnation by Judge Dugard. So WWII got us the UN and geneva conventions. WIll it take another such dire precipace to get the superpowers around a table and agree to be bound and indeed to bind each other to at least the basic tenet's of a legal system. Doesn't have to be complicated, in fact even a set of principals would suffice to begin with. 1. Don't take other peoples stuff! 2. Everyone limits standing military below a set level. 3. Enable everyone to see everyone else's military capability. 4. If violence breaks out, all parties will do everything in their power to deprive the combatants of weapons and ammunition.. 5. Economic Sanctions should never drive a population to famine or disease. If we could get them five in place we'd be in good fettle.
I want a copy of these rules.
The person holding "the big stick" makes the rules......
Which countries created the so called Rules based order.?😮
Well what did the UN charter say who is to police and punish those politicians that do not adhere to their laws?
They always throw around the phrase "rules-based order" when they're about to flout international law.
The rules based order.. who’s rules? 😅🤣 Might makes right.
Very interesting!
Robin Cole and Shelly Cooper is also a con job. Please, NSA help!!!!!
Mark Twain quipped "We have the best government, that money can buy" he was just being ironic, of course 🤔😀!
Perhaps the simplest way to understand the Rules Based Order is to try and spot differences between US politics now and those of Germany in the 1930s. The most distressing part to witness from here in Britain is the destruction of fiscal accountability which structures society and its replacement with deceitfully contrived debt on the one hand and a proliferation of slush funds on the other. The last person to get in on the act has been the Archbishop of Canterbury who has arranged out of Church finances a slush fund for ‘reparations for slavery’ in the thinnest slice conceivable to his either duped or else restricted understanding.
Hmm - para-law as a way to pivot away from actual law by supplanting it with their own self-serving rules. This is how the judicial system worked in the american south to subvert the rights of black people all the way into the 1960's, if not the present day. It adopted the appearance of law as understood in the north, but it was applied in a completely biased way, subject to the whim of local authorities. In this way, slavery persisted through convict leasing and debt peonage (not really known or understood that well by northern populations) up until fdr finally dealt with it in 1942. It was a way for Southern jurisdictions to have their corrupt cake and eat it too (at the expense of freedom, justice, and equality). In essence, a two tiered system of justice, the legacy of which Americans have been struggling to deconstruct to this day. To be clear, most Americans want the government to follow international law. The double standard is deployed to serve the plutocrats.
What is the purpose of having laws if the most powerful nation not recognising international law and basically because it is the one country that violates those laws.
Number of people arrested for social media posts in 2023:
In Russia - 400
In Britain - 3300
The only question is, why do the other western countries agree with the so called order.
A court without a jail is not a court
China/PRC did not accept the ruling of the ICJ on the status of Tibet which the PRC annexed in 1950.
Internal order is to suit America. International laws is what the world observing which America is not a party to.