is offering the total welcome to wells, a part apart from the many security and political disagreements between russia and the west that precipitated the credit conflict in ukraine. the decides also differ on existential concepts, such as justice and the quality of the ways they should be codified and implemented within the international system. can elastic piece be achieved without addressing those fundamental issues. first,

both to discuss that i'm now joined by john's degree was a professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission. but for some degree that's a great honor. pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. thank you very much. i made peace to these guys this afternoon. now it's been about 7 or 8 years since decision makers in the united states started a publicly referring to the who's based order as opposed to international law. and before we discussed the change of meaning and emphasis hiding behind this rhetorical device, i want to ask you when you 1st encounters uh, this very interesting phrase. and now what impression it made on you at that time? i'm just going to push that to it's only yes, the post for the does yet, but goodman station, because was that was it to him as being used before?

you mentioned a ship and yes, it does say that's perfectly the time that you start to, but it's become a be a privilege and good the 5 digit registration with there's a present binding and the secretary of state. and can you bring can and as a picture of it, they're going to station the 3rd to what the rules based on yours rooms based international order was as an international. now, as you pointed out, then you are very detailed and recent articles. this shift to the rules based order can be seen as the us as an alternative to international law and something that's washington. and it's always can use to mean whatever they want it to mean. it's a very pliable concept. and i think one can argue that it's not just in the eyes, but also in the hands of the beholder. and this is one of one, what i want to ask you about, do you see it as just the rhetorical device, or do you see it as a means to, you know,

very concrete policy or policy change for that matter. frank t, she's a mistake to me. i don't really understand it because know tim says be made as the budget ministration. any serious politician to explain exactly what it means and it has been mean it used to forgive but different orientations. wait, this is just 2 or 3 days ago. i heard just included in the debates about the increase in dispute with india. the 3rd to the fact that he was complying with the rooms based on that i was surprised. the adjustment to use that to as the western leaders have used that to, which i didn't say use, it was the same conviction and consistency as said, the members. okay. american administration. i think the british, oh,

perhaps more prone to using that too. as the united states does, but it is quite clear that many western european leaders use the term very loosely points since the dutch prime minister spoke about the rules based international legal order, which is maybe a sending them for international itself. what's this manipulative to me is that there is an appearance of i've codified norm, the intense to put certain constraints on the others without restricting defining the wheels. in this particular case, the united states. and what i'm genuine or wondering about is why washington would need something like this because the united states has a lot of influence on how international lawyers shape how it's applied. why would they need an alternative right into the number of reasons why

washington might prefer to use the rules based international order rugs and international at, in my recent article i suggested street reads the 1st is that so united states is not a party to a number of a significant important creatures take, for instance, what was the c convention as united states is not a party to this convention. and so for this reason, one finds that it, that criticizes trying to was actions. and this task trying to see by i rotate to effect the child has by day to day international rules based order realizes and international frontier hosted by the treaties, particularly in the field of international emetic, terry law, or just an extra human right school to which united states is not a party type principal,

so yet 1977 i go to college to the geneva conventions under normal united states is not a party to that is not a party to the roadside teach. obviously, international criminal court. it is not a party to z a n t personnel mines convention or because it tested so i'm say, but the, it's not a party to those conventions for many decades. never before it was particularly constrained or ashamed of it. i mean, they, the american official simply stated that they disagree with those conventions, and that's why don't they don't want to be a potty, a full party to it. but this phrase only appear. it's fairly recently, just rustic. it has become to be important because the united states is a caught up on stage to imply with shirts and provisions of peace to which it is nor to parties. because this is where you can respect to the zillow

. what was the c convention? but to me just mentioned that the problem is that is the team, not just a says recently decided to provide a ukraine, was to test a bunch just a bit difficult to reconcile with the commitment of it as a members of the which the lines to prohibit the use of the testing munitions most western states of party to the convention, prohibiting the custom munitions. and i thought you'd be difficult to understand how they could, except they just even go to the united states. so this is an example of the type of difficulty adjusting united states gets into when it's just north of bulky to at any convention. can you take it? i think so, but perhaps the most up to 6 on through the united states is the opposed to the international criminal court. you will recall that each impose

sanctions on the phone, the pressure due to the international criminal court that you've been sued at. no g, because she was said pursuing an investigation into the conduct of us ministry, enough gunny start the she was subjected to a color restrictions and a priest on her assets. united states is your party to this conviction and says magic. they can't but know that, cuz because the eyes, the scene has this green dot president putin. it becomes very embarrassing. please. united states. no, it has to coach for support behind the i c. c. what distance take itself from the r 60 at the same time? well, the united states seems to be uh, as it has done, uh, cleaning a certain uh, special status for itself on infecting your article. you quote to your colleague,

professor stuff and tell them and saying that their rules based order seems to allow for special rules in special cases. and i wonder if we can go further than that. just say that it's intended specifically to sense to fly that american position on any case, especially the united states, is ultimately claiming to be above the law it box international law. or is it too much? am i taking it so far? maybe that's putting it to too high, but i think the drawing post i gave of this the i p to the united states towards israel, of in the straits. my point to an industry is different comments. the ultimate 15, not just states, has special rules for page 3. in the case of israel winches, united states refuses to accept the legality. or if

a alex ation of east jerusalem, which is really good, set embassy to duration. but it also seems to accept c. uh, no furnace of the de facto uh, alex ation. uh, also westbank. so its very opposed to little foot alex ations in respect to the premier. well, denise good heads, but when it comes to it is well, different rules apply. i've heard you say before the 3 we may have to accept the double standard, essentially per, per c r, a features of a foreign policy of many states. and i want to ask you just why we have to accept that because it is not only unethical or immoral, but it's highly dangerous because of a almost negligible increase in balances. and then you need to, you, within the international system undermines the very problem. it's a flaw of,

you know, keeping everybody uh, you know, encouraging everybody to comply with the same rules. so if we accept hypocrisy, as the enhanced feature of them aren't we doing away with the whole concept of flaw . useful to double standard use a period coming in the international relations. but he is unfortunate that one must take to 110 to as opposed to to and of course it does become easier to engage in double standards. if you are not behaving in accordance with international, i came to court. this was a strange institution called the rules faced order, which is not the international one quick thing to go to what it is. now, professor is of course we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. the

the,

[000:00:00;00] the welcome back to the world. the portraits and john silver is a professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission. now uh, purpose and degree of view. you pointed out in your article that this uh, new frazer was based order. uh, the use of it is quite selective and it's primarily used uh uh, to criticize uh, russia, increasingly so china, you mentioned the example of canada in india, which i think is a very interesting new edition. why do you think it is? those particular countries that have become the, the targets of r, r b or purchases my difficulties. i don't really know what the lowest

base order is intended to be. and i think most your pin do you just did not die. that they used to be loosely sometimes is sending them for international. sometimes they use the term goals faced. ok. so i don't know what the purpose of that realized by stories but certainly it you adrian nights. the rest of the world is not the only china russian federation in india, that type difficulties research. i think that the global sauce is more so concerned about the failure of the wasted pause and do not just agent to connect to the pay by the rules of international norm. and i think this baker, one of the reasons why the united states is not able to gather as much support as you would like was yet, sanctions a gauge, the restaurant respect will be great. because the, the,

the global stuff really has been in full told over the years that you must comply with international law as it is generally understood the charter through not you know, issues and always find just the president of united states or restrictive state to say that they've been governed by some strange creature which is not into next legal, but the professor and i one day. the reason for many countries in the global south, resenting the use of that concept, is simply because whether we like it or not, international law provide certain security and peace guarantees. it comes with the i'm in bills benefit of predictability. if you play by the rules, you can expect that others play by the rules with regard to you. and i wonder if there is a sort of a, a human advantage to the united states coming up with this new rhetorical policy device. and that's uh,

the west will encapsulate itself within its own. imagine the rules based order. well, other countries will be left to that own devices and allow to follow international when in fact, i mean, if we see of some of them, there were some developments between, let's say, saudi arabia and iran and china and india and some other countries. the many countries do actually one that's predictability that international law provides, even though it's sometimes difficult to comply with it on a concrete basis. is the one point of too much flexibility in the application of what international doors understood. and it is a unit this or the go over that which governs all stage. the results here, we know who makes the rules. and we know how to spirits relation to the rules. can be filtered by international tribunals was the international court of justice. but

toby and the situation way, we ought to be governed by some a most this system with the rules. i know just for the it's difficult to just i have, i do not know what the rules of the rules based into an extra order. oh, and who makes the rules? clearly, the rules are not made by the international commission was the 6 committee or the general assembly. i get the impression as a rule. so those rules that that should do it just states. and of course, the least wisdom that allows, but i think it's more the legal system or not the legal system, the system or rules that that is devised by the united states disputing. it can take one moment and that's what i have united, the global sales, and the other stage. it might be all good. just there's some sort of patrick

agreement amongst wisdom, pause as to what the rules of little was based order. oh that's good. i haven't been spelled attached to it says when you just go to what sites you know, what is expected governance. absolutely, and i want to, i have one possible explanation uh for the designs behind this have a phrase and i want to run it by you because uh it is a russia and china that are the most frequent uh, visa users. uh, i'd be un security council against the wes proposed initiatives. so i wonder if uh, uh, this was a legal well, it's actually not legal concept at all if this was invented in a way to perhaps undermine or diligent demise. uh, the security council with the united states and its western part of partners. i still seem as least officially as on part of this others rather than um, you know,

exceptional in some sense. so i'm not sure that the purpose of it was based on what it is to determine the behavior of the she peer to task because united states and especially do, but it's perhaps a veto. so i'm going to say that that, that's the reason was it was based on, i just think united states has paid much attention to i have a feeling that there's a button just hasn't a vision to that international because the rules are strict and they, uh, remove that fixed abilities as to united states would be, i can respect or which international relations and in this exception, as with respect to it. so french. so now let's come closer to a very sensitive subject for, for me and my country that is uh the war in uh in ukraine. and i know that you're of the opinion that the russia has violated the most fundamental principles of

international law by launching its military operation in the neighboring country of the, of the american condemnations of those actions for now revolves around the rules based order. which as we discussed as a much narrower concept and also much less legitimate, the concept is not widely accepted by the international community. why do you think washington is rooting is the blame of russia within the army or confines so rather than using the advantage, the propaganda advantage of international law? well, this is quite frankly, something i don't understand. it's a tool because the traditional way to approach, right? it's just actions and you can use to organize that to the united nations charter. prohibits the use of both guys, the territorial integrity or particularly dependent children as the state. and the

skype from that probably be shipping is that, so to page i, russia has argued a shelter page, but quite frankly, not really convincingly. but i will just deal with that as a much better framework in which to approach. so metro, but consider that one might just mention before that the european union has condemned russia in terms of international norm. so, so united states, the budget registration, the 31st to put their risk into the, the booth space, the international order, which is meaningless as far as on, on check. and now i as in covering leather and put in the policies for 2 decades. and i also went to the same school where he got his legal diploma and i know for a fact that legal issues are not fully for into his heart. i mean, he takes legal reasoning pretty seriously, but he also made the

a number of statements to the effect that low is a little only when it's of how the universally, when it's one sided, one is exploited by a stronger party. if those being a little and then becomes either, you know, a political to, or what can, you know, something that allows one party an advantage over others. and i wonder if you see any, any real live reasoning there. i mean, it's true that the russia violated you christ territorial integrity, but i didn't have any other legal means of addressing its very great security concerns with i suppose one could just say that this was a measure which should have been referred to the international court of justice, but to the russia is not especially it does appear before the international court of justice, but to a document, it could oppose this particular dispute,

say to the international court of justice in order to say that it's the right to the as the means, which might have been for the churches at negotiation, but to gain to the whole history of the dispute of the ukraine. uh, if you say quite thing to say when i was much younger i, uh the, the imprints of a great depression. ok. the american international relations expert, george george, canon and george kevin will be, i strongly said that it was in the best interest, wished not to extend nato to, uh, ukraine. and it seems that sound right, but as well and your georgia account number was the writing and thinking of the

time when the international relations were far more straightforward. and that wasn't too big of a room for i'm big huge, which i think the united states has been using and abusing in recent tickets only with their rules based order. because it's a very ambiguous concept. you know, if the assigns responsibility is to some and the impunity to others, but also in many other policies. and this, i think you have also argue that this in fact, undermines international which has to be interpreted in more or less uniform. wait for it to be respected for it to be upheld. and i want to ask you as somebody who has the dedicated his career into a legal matter is, do you think it's possible a still for the international system for the international community to come back to the sort of austin, to city of purpose when it comes to international law and the agreement that, you know,

we all will comply by these rules that we have agreed upon and we will not come up with all the, you know, all those special cases for special countries. and quite frankly, i'm be distressed about the present state. oh, but it's an extra though because they also made a special case. i think they came broke in the case of but it's not published on for many years. and this is a case in which the which the united states, in particular, a gift of general were double standards and they refused to apply international. was it? the rule which we care of this done at evokes international in order to achieve at every single deal to patient, then the independence of the stronger so wished some people use this to apply international hazard supplies in respect of others change. and that's what i find.

so interesting about the present situation, you claim that the principles of international federal in but i do not use the search and the wished guys, russia's innovation in ukraine are precisely the same issues that a p a we uh, is the pedestal clinic. you do have an acceleration manual for that makes ation occupation with the patient. but the wished applies completely different standards and, and this is a what a purpose me about a state of international. well, uh, i want to sound a little bit more up to mystic because um, in this part of the world in asia, we have a police formation of all sorts of very loose consensus based known binding formats . like, for example, shanghai corporation, organization breaks where decisions are made on a conceptual basis,

but they're actually upheld by various countries because they see the benefits in, uh, inter sticking to their worth. and i hope that the, these trends will gather up steam, but it is indeed promised on the uh, all sides treating each other as equal potties uh, being on the same level or rather than somebody having some special status over there. either. do you think there is anything uh, anything helpful in the emergence of all those conceptual formats of negotiations you tuesday to concentra, which i think is the key word. international is premised on the concepts of states as a yet to, to consent to stacy international customers. know what the express current change in the form of the previous bond act or mux feedback. and this is my objection to

the rule space change next order states have not consented to it. and when called to have a legal order or some sort of international or the rooms based order to which states have not the consent judges. and that is really the root of the whole problem. and i think that we have to get back to the basic principles. there's page of international in that case, that international was based on content. and if it applies to everybody who can sense to it. yeah. and equality to is equal price of states. okay, well professor degrees, we have to leave it there. it's been great on there for me to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you very much and speed receiving to i can assist and thank you for watching. i hope to see you again on walter part of

the study if you're not already know mr. charlotte, he's in the room. the soldier monument was erected in 1947 in the estonian capital by the soviets. authorities originally built above the burial site of troops remains. it's the memorials of the soldiers who gave their lives and we'll go to the apartment and waiting for the familiar transition. in 2007,

the stony and government decided to relocate the monument from the city center for one year on the caps, where to find me to a to where in the frustrating to move divided the popular ation. stony is large of russian speaking communities, strongly opposed as an intense rising broke out in town. in these have since become known as the bronze knight drives me to bring people across the internet and they were all keenly attuned to the issue of bank fraud. here on the show, we've spoken to numerous voice of lowers who have told us about money laundering, income, tax evasion, and legal offshoring of assets. that's all complicated enough to make matters worse