Posted on 02/17/2026 2:25:48 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Marco Rubio considers it an "overused term" while Friedrich Merz thinks it "no longer exists". But while the US Secretary of State and German chancellor may not believe in the relevance of the rules-based international order, the concept — and its potential collapse — has been at the forefront of global geopolitics of late.
The phrase caught the global attention in January after a rare speech, from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in which a world leader tackled the often unspoken concept head on.
"We knew the story of the rules-based international order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim," he said. "Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised."
What is the rules-based international order?
Broadly speaking, the phrase refers to a system of multilateral laws, agreements, principles, and institutions designed to manage relations between states along liberal lines.
"The term replaces what was previously referred to as the liberal international order," Professor Stefan Wolff, Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre think tank, told DW. "Both described the system developed under American leadership after the end of the Second World War with the UN and the Bretton-Woods institutions as its core pillars."
The Day with Nicole Frölich
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
George Washington advised the United States to avoid permanent alliances with foreign nations and to maintain a policy of neutrality, focusing instead on temporary alliances only in emergencies. He believed that entangling relationships could lead to unnecessary conflicts and detract from the nation's interests.George Washington advised the United States to avoid permanent alliances with foreign nations and to maintain a policy of neutrality, focusing instead on temporary alliances only in emergencies. He believed that entangling relationships could lead to unnecessary conflicts and detract from the nation's interests.
Can I get an Amen!
Hi. I’d be curious what FRers think of Konstantin Kisun and Eric Weinstein’s recent discussions (you- tube, etc.) about “the rules based order.”
They both see the supposed RBO as done with, albeit from different perspectives. Both very interesting and articulate, imho
Konstantin:
Www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4
Eric:
…………………./watch?v=g4jnK58co2Q
...with acknowledgments to Captain Sparrow.
Amen!
It’s a rejection of the version of international law that has existed for decades in favor of a system where we make edicts and expect all nations to comply. We do this solely based on the fact that we have enough military force and economic power to compel their compliance though bombing and sanctions.
Example abound.
The bombing of Serbia is an example. International law was that except in self defense military force had to be authorized by the UN security council. But Russia and China are permanent members on the Security Council.
So we need a workaround. We had NATO vote and decide to bomb Serbia and claimed is was legal under he “rules based order”.
Same for Syria. The UN did not have sanctions on them. But we wanted them. So we roll out the Rules Based Order thing again.
Same for Russia, no UN economic sanctions on them. But we and the Euros wanted them... so out comes the Rules Based Order again.
Same for Venezuela. Nothing in the UN Charter allows an invasion and kidnapping of a foreign leader, even one that sucks. The UN had zero sanctions on Venezuela. So time to dust off the Rules Based Order again.
Nothing in the UN allows our war on tankers across the globe because we deem them illegal or a shadow fleet. Same for the blockade of Cuba.
Essentially, it’s a phrase designed to give a legal veneer to any whim we have and can enforce through raw power. The “rules” in the Rules Based Order come from DC and can change to suit us as we need them to.
The problem with a rules-based order is rules are enforced by cops. The US has been the world’s cop for about eighty years. The US took that role to bribe up an alliance to fight the Soviets. The threat of the Soviets is long gone. The US has been backing away from being the world’s cop for a while. I’d say that George Bush and the forever war have put a bad taste in our mouths for being the World Police.
During the age of empire, the British protected their ships.
The French and Dutch and Spanish and others did the same for their ships. Since 1945 pirates and ship seizures by sovereign nations have pretty much gone away. In recent years we are seeing more of all that with Somali pirates and Iranian ship seizures. That’s because the US is not on twenty-four-hour call anymore.
It would have been better if the cop role had been slowly reassigned to a multi-nation alliance but because those nations would have to cut into their socialist budgets to do that it was never going to happen. The only way to force it to happen is The Trump Way. Quit entirely and force them to do that. Then, when they’ve committed the money, we can step in and provide the logistics in the form of satellite data and refueling locations. Until the other nations agree to shoulder some burden, they’ll be losing to pirates and international pilfering.
“Broadly speaking, the phrase refers to a system of multilateral laws, agreements, principles, and institutions designed to manage relations between states along liberal lines.”
No... it most assuredly does not. Every “Rules Based Order” action we have taken since the 90s consistently violates laws, agreements, principles and the UN Charter. It’s a system that means we ignore those and do as we and the EU agree between us.
I'll go with both our Secretary of State and the German chancellor. The "rules based order" is an overused term, and as such it no longer exists.
We can add Carney into the mix and conclude it an overused term, and as such it no longer exists, and never really did because it was a "fiction."
And, yes, George Washington's warning about entanglements was spot on. Amen.
The rules based order may have meant something relatively good a long time ago, but in recent decades it has come to mean the hidden direction of all nations by globalist entities that are unelected and not responsible to anyone.
Yes it still had some of its original good qualities but nobody could enforce those anyway, any nuclear power could just trash the rules based order any time they felt like doing it, knowing that nobody would use sufficient force to stop them. But that’s not really the fault of globalists who in fact have poked around the edges (with regard to Russia at least) to find the limits of what opponents could do without getting nuked. This has led to the widespread belief that globalists don’t care if we do get nuked, which makes little sense because globalists would die about as fast as everyone else, unless they happened to know when to get into a shelter. Being mostly urban types, globalists might actually die in greater numbers than nationalists who tend to be congregated away from large cities. Whether they are also away from military targets is a different question.
If the Russia-Ukraine mess teaches us anything, it is perhaps this — Russia will go to considerable lengths to avoid escalating a war it is not winning (by its own definition of winning) to nuclear. But that doesn’t make poking the bear a good idea. The sooner we can find a solution to this mess, the safer we will all be.
The rules-based order will eventually be replaced, I think, but to get there, the United Nations (which nominally oversees the now defunct rules based order) will need to be replaced by an international body that restores some kind of sanity to a world where Iran and North Korea can be on committees overseeing human rights or economic progress.
A good start would be to invite only those nations with free and fair elections and leave out all the rest until they come around. Now I realize “free and fair elections” have elected globalists in a large number of countries, and fraud is not alleged in all of them (just voter ignorance of the nature of globalism). But if we had only non-globalists in an international body, it would be basically about four countries, one superpower and three relatively minor regimes. You can’t get to a working international order (which is a good thing to have in the abstract, as long as it doesn’t involve world government) from such a small quorum.
Epstein was probably one of its gate keepers.
Unless rules got changed, Jesse Jackson would have been picking cotton for decades.
A rules-based order assumes rules can be defined with sufficient precision and accuracy to work indefinitely.
In the real world we have marriages. Some last until death of a partner, but most don’t.
In 1963 it was simply not legally possible for my parents to get divorced in then heavily Catholic New York State. My father had to live in Alabama for a period of time.
If my mother had not wanted another child after the birth of my brother, she would have been unable to have a US doctor legally abort me.
Carrier Group Based Order, aka Gunboat Diplomacy.
We have federal elections every two years with the purpose of changing the rules called federal laws and federal budgets.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?The Monroe Doctrine appears to have implied a sense of permanency of alliance to a degree with nations on the American continents, and the notion seems to be to steer clear of permanent alliance with European powers in particular due to their tendency towards tyranny.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. […]
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed—in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them—conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another—that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character—that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. …
That’s the purpose that those who favor democracy over republicanism have imposed on us.
Exactly. It’s a polite legal sounding way to say “gunboat diplomacy”. With the added feature of weaponized banking and money.
If some other power takes on the role of World Police, they will start believing they have the right to police us.
A ‘law’, by any other name, would smell just as...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.