Emerging Challenges to the Rules-Based World

Profile of the author: Sampriti is a 2nd year law student of BALLB course, WBNUJS, Kolkata

“The possession of arbitrary power has always, the world over, tended irresistibly to destroy humane sensibility, magnanimity, and truth.”

- Frederick Law Olmsted

After wreaking havoc throughout the globe, the victorious Allies of World War II agreed upon establishing an international order to prevent further global conflagrations. The devised framework of rules and norms, embodied in international organisations like United Nation, World Trade Organisation, provided a platform to the states to settle political or economical disputes. The rules-based international system had exhibited resilience and success beyond the expectations of even its architect. Guiding the globe into an entirely new era, the order has brought more peace and prosperity for the last seven decades. However, with changed leaders, the nation undergoes a change in its fundamental policies. Given its antique roots, the system is expected to be challenged by increasing autocratic states aiming to disrupt the system.

Some of the most quoted threats to the declining rule-based world are China’s flouting the trade rules, a similar disregard by U.S. and Trump’s dislike towards most of the international institutions, Syria’s elimination of its own citizens and much more. Nevertheless, these are only the symptoms of deep-rooted vices that need8i to be wiped out. Before analysing the challenge, what is a rule-based order exactly?

To put it simply, it is a set of rules abided by most nations, of promises to which most nations fulfil, of institutions, customs, conventions, practices, evolving since the Second World War. It is a product of reflection and willingness to concede to one’s mistake and learn from the bitter conflicts. The international community has manufactured this structure and fortified it with a span of treaties and bodies fostering humanity and restraining the demonic. The rampant disruption in the international peace can be credited not only to the rising political upheaval between nations but to the internal conflicts of a nation. “When nations lose control of their own internal minorities and non-state actors take centre stage, the sickness deepens even further.” [1]

The threat to the order comes not as one powerful deathblow straight from a single system but gradually, from rising dissatisfaction among those the order originally intended to serve. Critiques have long alleged that the rules have arguably been framed to benefit the elite and craftily imposed by US and its allied on other countries. The imposition has exacerbated the fact that countries already missed the bus of development. The disruption we are noticing now is from the alienated segments which has allowed other nationalistic and protectionist countries – like U.S. and China – to flow with the tide. [2] In the backdrop of Trump upending traditional diplomacy and withdrawing from a majority of international accords like Paris Agreement, UNESCO and UNHRC, the first challenge to the rules-based world is legitimacy.[3] Even amidst the pandemic, Trump has decided to withdraw from WHO massively affecting the funds as US is the single largest contributor to the international health organisation. [4] For rules to have its enforcing power, it must be visibly observed by its powerful advocates. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, continued lethal drone strikes behind the façade of ‘war on terrorism’ in Pakistan, and withdrawals from major international organisations have given space for other countries to follow “might is right” policy. Consider China’s dam projects built near the border of Tibetan Plateau causing irreparable damage to the river system affecting a number of countries and the Mekong Delta to retreat; [5] or Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum intervening directly in the conflicts of Ukraine. The obvious implication being that enforcing rules-based order is a choice for powerful countries. This leads to the second challenge of equity. The goal is that the system should work for the majority, not the minority. Trade globalisation in emerging disruptive technologies has increased the wealth inequalities in the world. The trade wars between two powerful countries- US and China- have widened the already rising income gap. The United States has been reflecting its increasing uncertainty towards its willingness to adhere to the promises that rules-based-system demand. [6]

The third problem inextricably links to the first challenge of legitimacy is complacency and over-confidence. The longevity of the system has transmitted false confidence in the minds of the leaders. In fact, the world has faced many human rights revolutions and political conflicts. The assumption that the system will work when needed has bred complacency. Lack of enforcement has led the emerging powerful nation to escape from its despicable acts. That is why we need a strong enforcement structure.

In the shifting economy and political crisis, it is necessary to revitalize the current order and enforce it extensively. Just as the order was constructed with a goal to avoid totalitarianism rampant in 1930s and 1940s, similarly the revised order must have a clear aim to facilitate a modern construction. Without evolving itself and backing with no enforcing agency, the order will remain a fig leaf.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

FAQ:

Q. What was the origin of Liberal International Order?

Ans. Though cannot be pointed at a particular time, it is generally regarded that the Bretton Woods System originated the mentioned mechanism. The Bretton Woods agreement was held in 1944 which led to the creation of International Monetary Fund and World Bank in 1945.

REFERENCES

[1] David Howell, ‘The attack on the rules-based order’ (The Sunday Guardian, 10 November 2018) <https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/attack-rules-based-order> accessed 10 July 2020

[2] Narayan Ramchandran, ‘The end of the rules-based global world’ (Livemint, 25 June 2018) <https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/YnQkB0zx6tqtZN0StbGIQP/The-end-of-the-rulesbased-global-order.html> accessed 10 July 2020

[3] David Herszenhorn, ‘G20 Leaders reaffirm rules-based international order’ (Politico, 12 January 2018) <https://www.politico.eu/article/g20-leaders-reaffirm-rules-based-international-order/> accessed 10 July 2020

[4] ‘US formally notifies UN of to withdraw from WHO’ (The Economic Times, 08 July 2020) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/us-formally-notifies-un-of-decision-to-withdraw-from-who/articleshow/76845421.cms> accessed 10 July 2020

[5] Brahma Chellaney, ‘The illusion of a rule-based global order’ (The Strategist, 23 December 2019) <https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-illusion-of-a-rules-based-global-order/> accessed 10 July 2020

[6] Ash Jain, ‘Breathing new life into a rules-based system – a Global Strategy’ (WEF, 09 November 2019) <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/breathing-new-life-into-a-rules-based-system-a-global-strategy/> accessed 10 July 2020

Picture Credits- Ingram Pinn