3 ms·

I first heard the term in the mid 1970s in Australia. After WWII it referred to the establishment of the UN charter The rules-based international order as w

by defrost 10mo ago

I first heard the term in the mid 1970s in Australia. After WWII it referred to the establishment of the UN charter The rules-based international order as we know it today is predicated on a system of laws, rules, and norms, and it has underpinned international interactions since its formal establishment in 1945. Whether its overall influence is positive or negative continues to be predicated on the actions of the members of the international community, but one cannot influence what one does not fully understand. ~ https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-rules-based-international-order-explained https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-rules-based-internatio... Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order

SanjayMehta 10mo ago
Thank you for your research and thoughtful responses. While it appears the term is indeed older than what I thought, the usage which we in India (also the "third world, global south) are familiar with is some USAian official talking down to us without specifying which treaty they are using to place their latest unilateral demands. And now it appears the term backfired and Carney is one the first to show some spine: "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim." The last part of his statement resonates especially when it comes to conveniently labelled "war crimes" committed by non USAian and non European heads of state and subsequent abduction and "prosecution" by corrupt institutions in the West.
- defrost 10mo ago
  As per the apocryphal Chinese curse; we do live in interesting times. I've read many takes on current events in recent weeks, some from historians, others from various factions of many of the larger countries and economies. One that still resonates was an opinion piece in Al-Jazeera Greenland is not just a territorial concern. It is a reckoning It is quite ironic that the imperialism Denmark helped normalise for decades now threatens Danish sovereignty. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/20/greenland-is-not-just-a-territorial-concern-it-is-a-reckoning https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/20/greenland-is-no... Australia has been equally complicit in following in America's wake despite increasing concern over the past quarter century. Perhaps countries should have insisted many years past that Kissinger be put in front of an international court. "Rules for thee and not for US" is getting old fast now.

by defrost 10mo ago

SanjayMehta 10mo ago

Thank you for your research and thoughtful responses. While it appears the term is indeed older than what I thought, the usage which we in India (also the "third world, global south) are familiar with is some USAian official talking down to us without specifying which treaty they are using to place their latest unilateral demands. And now it appears the term backfired and Carney is one the first to show some spine: "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim." The last part of his statement resonates especially when it comes to conveniently labelled "war crimes" committed by non USAian and non European heads of state and subsequent abduction and "prosecution" by corrupt institutions in the West.

defrost 10mo ago
As per the apocryphal Chinese curse; we do live in interesting times. I've read many takes on current events in recent weeks, some from historians, others from various factions of many of the larger countries and economies. One that still resonates was an opinion piece in Al-Jazeera Greenland is not just a territorial concern. It is a reckoning It is quite ironic that the imperialism Denmark helped normalise for decades now threatens Danish sovereignty. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/20/greenland-is-not-just-a-territorial-concern-it-is-a-reckoning https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/20/greenland-is-no... Australia has been equally complicit in following in America's wake despite increasing concern over the past quarter century. Perhaps countries should have insisted many years past that Kissinger be put in front of an international court. "Rules for thee and not for US" is getting old fast now.