Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#61

Post by y0eswddl »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #42
poisonarena wrote: post #2

There is no such thing as "international law", and never has been. Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has.

Not in a civilized society. And I don't think there are many people that would prefer to live under 'might is right'. Or at least they'd find out pretty quick that it's not exactly what they thought it might be.

we literally already live under "might is right"

that's all "the law" is in the first place - Power making rules and enforcing them through threat of exercising said power.

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#62

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #60
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rules based order, as endlessly parroted out by mostly European and USAian talking heads, is meaningless. It was never meaningless. It was rather like the rights enumerated in the US bill of rights back before the Civil War. Aspirational, rarely enforced but something that (some) people some of the time tried to live up to.

I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. Maybe it was valid rhetoric then, but since 2011 or so it's been linked in many countries with arbitrary policies made up in part by NGOs and think tanks. One Indian economist has pointed out the circular nature of these "rules" - a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules, IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose…

> I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade.

I'm reasonably sure that it came from a US partisan split, where the Republicans were claiming to be an empire, while the Democrats wanted to be a "reality based community".

That being said, the ideas behind it are much, much older.

> a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules

I don't understand why a hedge fund would do this. Certainly a bunch of asset managers cared about ESG when it helped them win new business but that's all.

> IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose on poorer country loans.

The IMF is basically a disaster, has it ever been successful?

> (One of the reasons why the Chinese BRI is so successful is because the Chinese are much more clear in the transaction: resources for infrastructure. No silly ESG and climate rules.)

I mean that's all fine till they forclose on the loans and you end up with Treaty ports/foreign economic zones in your country.

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#63

Post by defrost »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #62
SanjayMehta wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. Maybe it was valid rhetoric then, but since 2011 or so it's been linked in many countries with arbitrary policies made up in part by NGOs and think tanks. One Indian economist has pointed out the circular nature of these "rules" - a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules, IMF et al adopt it and then use that to decline or foreclose…

> I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. I'm reasonably sure that it came from a US partisan split, where the Republicans were claiming to be an empire, while the Democrats wanted to be a "reality based community". That being said, the ideas behind it are much, much older. > a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules I don't understand why a hedge fund would do this. Certa…

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-internatio...

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#64

Post by SanjayMehta »

defrost wrote: post #63
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember this term appeared around 2005 when Australia was upset with China over trade. I'm reasonably sure that it came from a US partisan split, where the Republicans were claiming to be an empire, while the Democrats wanted to be a "reality based community". That being said, the ideas behind it are much, much older. > a hedge fund comes up with ESG rules I don't understand why a hedge fund would do this. Certa…

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 me…

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.

Re: US believes its power matters more than international law, UN chief

#65

Post by defrost »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #64
defrost wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

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: "…

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-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.

Post reply on HN