4 ms·

the rules-based system What rules? Where are these rules written? Who wrote those rules? Where can I read those rules? Who says those rules over-ride the UN Ch

the rules-based system What rules? Where are these rules written? Who wrote those rules? Where can I read those rules? Who says those rules over-ride the UN Charter? Do those rules over-ride the UN Charter? If those rules do over-ride the UN Charter, why is that?

rntn 5y ago
I think the author, a former senior Canadian foreign service officer who has served in Washington, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, and New York, is referring to the commonly understood rules based system that all members of the G7 (at least) are conversant with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order I would also refer you to the discussions you had with the HN user "cmurf" 4 days ago and 9 days ago, specifically, their last comment in the thread 9 days ago, which no one seems to be willing to address. If you would like, let's try and continue from those threads, using the question at the bottom of your rather pedantic barrage here, and bearing in mind cmurf's exhortation to not let the perfect be the (strawman) enemy of the good. --- For others reading, please find the threads here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30973930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30973930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30916833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30916833 --- I do hope we can avoid pedantic literalisms and whataboutisms and look seriously at how the rules based system as it is commonly understood by those who actually work in it operates.. - and look seriously at the changes that are happening even now to address the dysfunction in the UN security council and to address rogue nations like North Korea and Russia and their enablers in China.. These informal rules have existed since the First World War, and they have evolved through the time of the League of Nations and continue to evolve ; and, to answer your question here, if it proves necessary, the informal rules of the Western US led nuclear powers will in fact eclipse the UN Charter even if not in the actual letter of the document.. This does not mean that the UN and all other global organizations are just a fig leaf on America's naked aggression - claims along those lines are refuted in the daily news out of Ukraine.. It means that, to all nations who have been or still are in the orbit of powers like Russia and China, there is nothing they aspire to more than to be in western aligned organizations like the EU, NATO, ASEAN.. Isn't it curious that the only national governments that do not aspire in that direction are all non democratic..? It is obvious that no equivalent structure exists outside of the "rules based order" of the western world.. Just ask anyone who has the freedom to answer honestly. We should all hope that changes of this magnitude are conducted in a way that is as orderly as possible and avoids misunderstandings about this reality from the proliferating nuclear nations that are not western aligned.. As we are all now well aware, coddling Russian dictators will not achieve clarity on this basic US backed nuclear power reality. Confusion in this matter may be beneficial to Putin's aims in Ukraine and the Baltic states, etc, but it is most decidedly not in the interest of the people of the world who will be annihilated if Russia triggers a global nuclear war. For me personally, the processes by which these changes might safely play out are a fascinating and singularly worthwhile area of consideration. I look forward to a discussion that we might both find interesting on these topics..
- simonblack 5y ago
  I'm not going to get involved in a slanging match, but I refer you to one of the sentences in the "Definitions" part of the "Liberal International Order" given by you as a reference to the 'rules-based order': They note that the LIO is not synonymous with a "rule-based international order", ... Hence my original comment still stands. Whose rules? Where are they written? Where can I (or anybody else) get to read these rules? Or are they made up on the fly, according to the whims of the moment or the wave of a hand? Laws are made for a reason. They are put down in black and white for a reason. There is a very old saying: "If there are no Rules of the Game, then people will make up their own rules." But there are Rules of the Game, it's called the UN Charter as laid down in the 1940s. The trouble is that some people think that they can comply with the UN Charter only when it suits their own purposes. And do their own thing whenever the UN Charter interferes with their desires.
  - rntn 5y ago
    Not sure what a 'slanging match' might entail, but thank you for the reply all the same. Laws are indeed "there for a reason".. Of course, "there" refers to the nation in which they are promulgated.. The UN charter is a bit lacking in the force of law department, as has been demonstrated all too often.. Until we grow up beyond the tiresome, mindless flag waving of all the parochial nationalisms, we are going to have to sort out just how "people will make up their own rules." as you said.. To me, this is precisely the most interesting - and most important - part of human organization at scale, which, not coincidentally, is also the only way we will be able to address climate change (assuming of course that we are not addressing nuclear winter first) .. Now, I don't want to be a bore, so I will conclude here and await your response, if you feel inclined to continue in the vein of your threads as I referenced previously or in the more abstract future orientation as I am introducing here.. Thanks again for the reply.
    - simonblack 5y ago
      The UN charter is a bit lacking in the force of law department, as has been demonstrated all too often.. That's unfortunately been all very true. But the only written international laws are those specified "there" in the UN Charter. There are also the Nuremberg Tribunal precedents. That's where the 'there' is, not in the countries who can make up any law they care to pass. Note that all countries have ratified the UN Charter, but still prefer to breach it shamelessly whenever it suits them. But the 'rules-based order' is merely propaganda if if can't be examined closely according to what is written and World situations measured against what is plainly set forth. Because nothing is plainly set forth, countries can make up their own rules and do, whenever they want to, hence the 'rules-based order' which means anything they want it to. As in this quote from literature: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass By not having the 'rules-based order' down in black and white, the West has maintained being the 'master' and in control by pure military power. Unfortunately, that time has gone. If the West wanted to retain control, they should have initiated a War against China back around 2020. But it's too late now. In their hubris, that moment has slipped out of the West's grasp. And the West should have bent over backwards to incorporate Russia into the West, rather than push it forcefully into the Chinese bloc. I am not optimistic about the future. I see the long-coming 'Really Big One' occurring in the next 12 months. It will affect us all.

rntn 5y ago

I think the author, a former senior Canadian foreign service officer who has served in Washington, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, and New York, is referring to the commonly understood rules based system that all members of the G7 (at least) are conversant with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order I would also refer you to the discussions you had with the HN user "cmurf" 4 days ago and 9 days ago, specifically, their last comment in the thread 9 days ago, which no one seems to be willing to address. If you would like, let's try and continue from those threads, using the question at the bottom of your rather pedantic barrage here, and bearing in mind cmurf's exhortation to not let the perfect be the (strawman) enemy of the good. --- For others reading, please find the threads here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30973930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30973930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30916833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30916833 --- I do hope we can avoid pedantic literalisms and whataboutisms and look seriously at how the rules based system as it is commonly understood by those who actually work in it operates.. - and look seriously at the changes that are happening even now to address the dysfunction in the UN security council and to address rogue nations like North Korea and Russia and their enablers in China.. These informal rules have existed since the First World War, and they have evolved through the time of the League of Nations and continue to evolve ; and, to answer your question here, if it proves necessary, the informal rules of the Western US led nuclear powers will in fact eclipse the UN Charter even if not in the actual letter of the document.. This does not mean that the UN and all other global organizations are just a fig leaf on America's naked aggression - claims along those lines are refuted in the daily news out of Ukraine.. It means that, to all nations who have been or still are in the orbit of powers like Russia and China, there is nothing they aspire to more than to be in western aligned organizations like the EU, NATO, ASEAN.. Isn't it curious that the only national governments that do not aspire in that direction are all non democratic..? It is obvious that no equivalent structure exists outside of the "rules based order" of the western world.. Just ask anyone who has the freedom to answer honestly. We should all hope that changes of this magnitude are conducted in a way that is as orderly as possible and avoids misunderstandings about this reality from the proliferating nuclear nations that are not western aligned.. As we are all now well aware, coddling Russian dictators will not achieve clarity on this basic US backed nuclear power reality. Confusion in this matter may be beneficial to Putin's aims in Ukraine and the Baltic states, etc, but it is most decidedly not in the interest of the people of the world who will be annihilated if Russia triggers a global nuclear war. For me personally, the processes by which these changes might safely play out are a fascinating and singularly worthwhile area of consideration. I look forward to a discussion that we might both find interesting on these topics..

simonblack 5y ago
I'm not going to get involved in a slanging match, but I refer you to one of the sentences in the "Definitions" part of the "Liberal International Order" given by you as a reference to the 'rules-based order': They note that the LIO is not synonymous with a "rule-based international order", ... Hence my original comment still stands. Whose rules? Where are they written? Where can I (or anybody else) get to read these rules? Or are they made up on the fly, according to the whims of the moment or the wave of a hand? Laws are made for a reason. They are put down in black and white for a reason. There is a very old saying: "If there are no Rules of the Game, then people will make up their own rules." But there are Rules of the Game, it's called the UN Charter as laid down in the 1940s. The trouble is that some people think that they can comply with the UN Charter only when it suits their own purposes. And do their own thing whenever the UN Charter interferes with their desires.
- rntn 5y ago
  Not sure what a 'slanging match' might entail, but thank you for the reply all the same. Laws are indeed "there for a reason".. Of course, "there" refers to the nation in which they are promulgated.. The UN charter is a bit lacking in the force of law department, as has been demonstrated all too often.. Until we grow up beyond the tiresome, mindless flag waving of all the parochial nationalisms, we are going to have to sort out just how "people will make up their own rules." as you said.. To me, this is precisely the most interesting - and most important - part of human organization at scale, which, not coincidentally, is also the only way we will be able to address climate change (assuming of course that we are not addressing nuclear winter first) .. Now, I don't want to be a bore, so I will conclude here and await your response, if you feel inclined to continue in the vein of your threads as I referenced previously or in the more abstract future orientation as I am introducing here.. Thanks again for the reply.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    The UN charter is a bit lacking in the force of law department, as has been demonstrated all too often.. That's unfortunately been all very true. But the only written international laws are those specified "there" in the UN Charter. There are also the Nuremberg Tribunal precedents. That's where the 'there' is, not in the countries who can make up any law they care to pass. Note that all countries have ratified the UN Charter, but still prefer to breach it shamelessly whenever it suits them. But the 'rules-based order' is merely propaganda if if can't be examined closely according to what is written and World situations measured against what is plainly set forth. Because nothing is plainly set forth, countries can make up their own rules and do, whenever they want to, hence the 'rules-based order' which means anything they want it to. As in this quote from literature: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass By not having the 'rules-based order' down in black and white, the West has maintained being the 'master' and in control by pure military power. Unfortunately, that time has gone. If the West wanted to retain control, they should have initiated a War against China back around 2020. But it's too late now. In their hubris, that moment has slipped out of the West's grasp. And the West should have bent over backwards to incorporate Russia into the West, rather than push it forcefully into the Chinese bloc. I am not optimistic about the future. I see the long-coming 'Really Big One' occurring in the next 12 months. It will affect us all.