Skip to content

Rules-based Order

Wolves Crying Wolf: Canada, Denmark, Etcetera

People like Canada's Mark Carney are crying foul about the demise of the ‘rules-based order’ now, over fucking Greenland, and not over the whole Palestinian genocide he just merrily supplied and supported, or any number of atrocities Canada has been involved in, including Canada. White people really want to do crime and high-fives for confessing. I hope America does take Canada, to cure them of their delusion of being the ‘good guys’ of colonialism. I say this as a passport-carrying Canadian. Carney's ‘speech of the century’ isn't worth the dust on a Palestinian fighter's sandals.

What Mark Carney Gets Wrong About The End Of The ‘Rules-Based Order’

Speaking yesterday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that the so-called “rules-based international order” is over. He warned that middle powers face a world defined by coercion rather than cooperation, urged renewed commitment to territorial integrity and sovereignty, and called for greater unity among countries caught between resurgent great-power rivalry. Carney is right that the old order is not coming back. He is right that sovereignty matters, and that Canada and its partners cannot rely on geography or historic alliances to guarantee security or prosperity.

The Charter International System Is In Deep Crisis

In 1945, humanity came together to create the Charter international system based on the United Nations. It expressed the hope that after the most catastrophic war the world had yet seen, a comprehensive set of normative principles and institutional practices would prevent another conflict of that magnitude from ever occurring again. By coming together on a set of shared principles, the hope was that a better system of international relations would emerge. The result was the UN and its foundational Charter, reinforced subsequently by numerous declarations, protocols and conventions.

What Is The Rules-Based Order?

The way that the wording rules-based order is bandied about makes it sound like it has worldwide acceptance and that it has been around for a long time. Yet it comes across as a word-of-the-moment, both idealistic and disingenuous. Didn’t people just use to say international law or refer to the International Court of Justice, Nuremberg Law, the UN Security Council, or the newer institution — the International Criminal Court? Moreover, the word rules is contentious. Some will skirt the rules, perhaps chortling the aphorism that rules are meant to be broken. Rules can be unjust, and shouldn’t these unjust rules be broken, or better yet, disposed of? Wouldn’t a more preferable wording refer to justice? And yes, granted that justice can be upset by miscarriages. Or how about a morality-based order?
assetto corsa mods

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! 

Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Sign Up To Our Daily Digest

Independent media outlets are being suppressed and dropped by corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our daily email digest before it’s too late so you don’t miss the latest movement news.