3 ms·
> We moved to a rules based world order I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the
by nwellnhof 2y ago
> We moved to a rules based world order
I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the hegemon broke over and over again. So what are these rules?
- KoolKat23 2y agoTreaties, International law and international institutions. People occasionally break the law in countries too, doesn't mean it's a free for all when there is one crime committed.
- AlecSchueler 2y agoWe had all of those things before WW2.
- KoolKat23 2y agoNot to the same extent. You also had imperialism. Just found a good write up. The economic integration was intentional post WWII. https://jstribune.com/azar-gat-is-war-declining/ https://jstribune.com/azar-gat-is-war-declining/
- AlecSchueler 2y agoI know, I'm just saying those things listed can't be the basis of it since we had them already. Economic integration like with the steal and coal community is a fait point but it wasn't what was said when I responded. The claim was that it was a "rules based order" and that the rules were "treaties, International law and international institutions." No mention of economic integration. We also have imperialism today and have done since the end of WW2.
- KoolKat23 2y agoThe basis for the Bretons Woods agreements was intentionally to integrate economically and treaties post WW1 and WW2 were intentionally to stop imperialism. That was not the case before. Perhaps it occasionally has happened since but not at the scale beforehand and with plenty of roadblocks. It's like saying crime is rampant when one person commits one, it's hyperbole to say so.