the, the, the, the, [000:00:00;00] the,

the welcome to wells, a part apart from the mini security and political disagreements between russia and the west that precipitated the credit conflict in ukraine. the decides also differ on essential concepts such as justice and equality of the ways they should be codified and implemented within the international system. can a lasting peace be achieved without addressing those fundamental issues 1st. well, to discuss that i'm now joined by john the degree that professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission professor degrees. it's a great honor pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. thank you. very much, i'm a piece to be just talk to. now it's been about 7 or 8 years since decision makers in the united states started uh, publicly referring to the rules 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's made on you at that time? i must confess that to it's only yes, could be forcefully. i'm just yet. i get my mistakes because that was that was it to him as being used before. you mentioned a 7 years and i think that's probably the time that he started. but his big a be a privilege i under the 5 digit ministration with there's a present binding and the secretary of state. and can you bring can and other officials, they're going to station the 3rd to what the rules based on yours rooms based international order was an international. now as your point is that within your

very detailed and reason to articles this shift to the rules based order, it can be seen as the us as 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 pull is the change for that matter. frank peace is a mistake. to me, i don't really understand it because no tempted to be made as the budget ministration. any serious part of the patient to explain exactly what it means and it has been mean it used to forgive but different orientations. witnesses just 2 or 3 days ago. i heard just included in

the face about the increasing dispute with india, the 3rd to the fact that he was complying with the rooms based order. i was surprised here just to use that to as the western leaders have used that to which i didn't say. ready use it was the same conviction and consistency as said, the members. okay. american at administration. i think the british of perhaps more prone to using that to that as the united states does. but it is quite clear that many western european leaders use the term baylis. the point 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 constrains 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. uh, why would it need an alternative as into the number of reasons why washington might prefer to use it to really based international order rather than international at, in my recent article i suggested street reads the 1st is that the united states is not a party to a number of the significant important creatures take for it seems that it was a sea convention as united states has 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 effects to try and has by day for the international rules based order rule as an 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 just not a party type principle. so yet 1977 that go to college to the geneva conventions under normal united states is not a party to that is not a party to the roadside to drop the international criminal court. it is not a party to z a n t personnel mines convention or does it test it from says professor, the, it's not a party to those conventions for many decades, never before what's 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 call you up on stage to imply with church and the provisions of peace to which it is nor to parties. because this is a can respect to the zillow as a c convention. but to me, just to make sure that the appropriate electors, 50 united states has recently decided to provide a ukraine, was to test a bunch just to be difficult to reconcile with the commitment of the members of o t, which the launch to prohibit the use of the tested 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 did so you can go to united states. so this is an example of the type of difficulties across the united states gets into when it does not have bulky to at any convention. ready taken ethics or perhaps a more focused example, the united states is the opposed to the international criminal court. you will recall that each impose sanctions when the full, the prostitute of the international criminal court had to been sued at no g because she was said pursuing an investigation into the conduct of us ministry. you know, kind of start the, she was subjected to a color, restrictions and appraised on her assets. united states is your party because this conviction and so it's magic. they can't but know that course because the eyes,

the scene, has decided to not president putin. if it comes to be embarrassing, please united states, no, it has to coach for support behind the i c. c. what distance ticket itself from the 6 to you at the same time? well this, this seems to be uh, as it has home done uh, cleaning a certain uh, special status for a cellphone, infecting your article. you quote, your colleague, professor stephan tillman, saying that the rules based order seems to allow for specials in special cases. and i wonder if we can go further than that, just say that it's in town that specifically just sanctify the american position on any case, especial, the united states is ultimately claiming to be above the law above international law. or is it too much it might take me up so far?

maybe that's putting it to too high. but i think the examples doug gave of this the at the to the united states or israel or in the straits. my industry is different. thomas said, argument 15, not just states has special rules for page 3. in the case of israel winches, so not just states because there's to accept the legality or c, alex ational insterested, which is really good, said embassy to duration. but it also seems to accept the uh, no furnace of the de facto enix ation. uh, also westbank. so its very opposed to little foot alex ations. uh, in respect of a crime. yeah. well, denise good heads, but when it comes to it is,

well, different rules apply. i've heard you say before that we, 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 prime. it's a flaw of, you know, keeping everybody in, 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 law useful to double standard use to period coming in the international relations. but the, because 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 much in accordance with the strange institution. quote, the rules based order, which is not the international and what i can 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. state you in the take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shepherd, reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants

a better wills. and is it just because it shows you few fractured images presented to this? but can you see through their illusions, going underground? can the welcome back to the world supports us and john silver is a professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission. now uh, purpose and do agree with you. 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 might get to go to used. i don't really know what the goal is based on what it is intended to be. and i think most your pin do you just did not die, that they used to be loosely sometimes as a sending them for you just an extra though. sometimes they use the chemical spaced odor. so i don't know what the purpose of the real estate stories, but certainly it alienates the rest of the world and not to own the china russian federation in india that, that difficult. this was, 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 pay by the rules of international norm. and i think this maker,

one of the reasons why the united states is not able to gather as much support as you would like. what was the sanctions engage the restaurant and respect to be great. because the, the, the, the global stuff, it really has been in full told over the years that you must comply with international as it is generally understood the charter to not to pay issues. and now he's fine. just the president of united states, a restrictive state, to say that the being 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 their rules with regard to you and i, one day there is a sort of a, a human advantage to the united states coming up with this new rhetorical oppose to devise. and that's uh, the westfield in capsulated cells 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 there were some developments between, let's say, so when you're ready and iran and china and india and some other countries, the many countries do actually one that's predictability that international law provides. that 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 north understand it is a unit lucas or the go over to which governs all state the results here.

we know who makes the rules and we know how to space relation to the rules can be standard uh, international tribunals, the international court of justice. but toby and the situation where we ought to be governed by some what this system with the rules. i know that's why 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 i know that who makes the rules can do the rules are not made by the international commission. was a 6 committee of the general assembly. i get the impression as a rule. so those rules that. busy should do it just states and of course, of 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,

buys united states to see change. 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, but they haven't been spelled, attach it to the centurylink, just go to what sites you know, what is expected government? absolutely, and i want to, i have one possible explanation of 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 this was a legal well, it's actually not the 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 west and part of partners. i still seem at least officially as on part of is others rather than um, you know, exceptional in some sense. so i'm not sure that the purpose of it, it was based on what it is to determine the behavior of the she peer to task because united states and especially to bus, to have c a veto. so i'm going to say that that that's the reason for the religious baseboard. i just think united states has paid much attention to i have a feeling that present budget just has the vision to the 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 fringe. so now let's come closer to a very sensitive subject for, for me in 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 routing is blame of russia within the r b o? confines that 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 registers, actions new, okay,

is to or is that to the united nations charter prohibits needing support against the territory case with key or particularly dependent children as the state. and the skype from that probably be she is a self to page i. russia has argued a shelter page, but quite frankly, not really convincingly. but i would just thought that was a nice piece of framework in which to approach so much of but considerate, 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 newest base, 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. it's those being a little and it becomes either, you know, a political to, or a weapon. uh, you know, something that allows one party an advantage over others. um and i wonder if you see any, any real live reasoning there. i mean, it's true that the russia violated you credit 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 doesn't matter which should

have been referred to the international court of justice but to the russia is not actually, it does appear before the international court of justice, but to a dock with it the 1st this particular to dispute. so g, g, h, an extra court of justice in order to say that it's the to the as the wage, which might have been for the churches at negotiation. but i don't want to engage. there's a whole history of a dispute of the ukraine. if you say quite thing to say when i was much young, guy built into the imprints of the great depression. ok, the american international relations expert, george george clinton and george kevin will be i strongly said that

it was the best interest wished not to extend nato to uh, ukraine. and i think that the sound i but as well joe and george carolyn was the writing and thinking at the time when the international relations were far more straightforward. and there wasn't too big of a room full and big unity which i think the united states has been using and abusing in recent tickets. not only with never was 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 argued 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 to 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. but quite frankly, i'm be distressed about the present state. oh, but it's an extra though because they also maybe special cases. i think they keep being broken into play so, but it's not just on for many years. and there's, this is a case in which the, which the united states in particular, i'll give you of general double standards and they refuse to apply international. was it the rule which we get this done at the extension actual in order to

achieve at you have additional delta patient and the independence of a strong visual wished so piece of pieces to apply international as it applies it in respect to other states or that's what i'll find so interesting about the present situation, you claim that the principles of international set up in bed. i do not use search and the wished guys rushes innovation in ukraine are precisely the same issues that a p a we uh, is the pedestal clinic. you do have an exception annual for that makes ation okay. patient is a little 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 proliferation 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 benefit in, uh, you know, 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 parties uh, being on the same level or rather than somebody having some special status over there. other, do you think there is anything, anything helpful in the emergence of all those conceptual formats of negotiations you tuesday to conceptual, which i think is the key word international is premised on the concepts of states as a see yet to,

to consent to stacy international customers. know what the express code and change in the form of the previous bond act or moxy that and this is my objection to the rule space, the international order states have not consented to it. and when called to have a legal order or some sort of international or would it ruge based order to which states have not to consider and that is weight is 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 the content. and if it applies to everybody who convinced it is yeah. and equality to is equal price of states. ok, well professor, diggers, we have to leave it there. it's been great. honor for me to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you very much and speed receiving chatting. i can assist

you and thank you for watching. i hope to see you again on walter part the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the, there's no end in sight over how you're going to continue to destroy the earth. is the case for the med, most of the people. i tried to go to the gym, but i'm certainly not ready to fight russia. this is also of soon. this is the 3rd world will receive re washing as for sort of wonder line likes to say we have the tools while we just start with stability and business deals to living on line. we

have very close propaganda. you know, a price here in new york. i think we don't know the aftermath any time that you're not allowed to ask questions, you should ask all of the questions. some more questions ask a better. the answer is will be the heavy over night bombardment of northern guns. the bias relief forces us the grid and how a city in depth will reportedly approaches 9 and a half by some people. sizes of demonstrators make their feelings felt across the world, calling on the international community to demand the ceasefire in dallas, and negotiated please. and also among the stories that shape