to 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 equality 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 gallagher, the 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'm a piece 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 gonna push that to it's only yes, the post for the does yet, but different station, because was that was it to him as being used before? you mentioned a shipping? yes. it does say that's perfectly the time that you start to, but just pick a be a privilege and good to project registration with those a present binding and the secretary of state and you've been can. and as a picture of it registration,

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 a to the rules based order, it 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 peace is 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.

witnesses 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 a just 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 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 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. uh, why would they need an alternative right into the number of reasons west 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 the united states is not a party to a number of the significant important creatures take for it seems to what was the

c convention as united states has not a party to this convention. and so for this reason, one finds that it, that criticizes china was actions in the south china sea. by i rotate to effect the china 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 rights go to which united states is not a party type principle, see yet 1977, not go to college to the geneva conventions under normal united states is not a party to that is not a party to the ropes. i teach, obviously, international criminal court. it is not a party to z a n t. personnel mines convention or does it test it from said

the, it's not a party to those conventions for many decades, never before is was particularly constrained or ashamed of it's. 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 shifting the provisions of peace to which it is nor to parties because this is a kid, respect to the little ones a 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 to be difficult to reconcile with the commitment of

other members of the wish to launch to prohibit the use of the testing munitions, most western states of party to the convention prohibiting tests of munitions. and i thought you'd be difficult to understand how they could, except they just ignore the united states. so this is an example of the type of difficulties with the united states gets into when it does not have bulky to at any convention taken. i think so, but perhaps the most up to 6 on for the united states is to be opposed to the international criminal court. if 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 your party because this conviction and says magic, they can't but know that cuz because of the eyes, the scene has just conduct. president putin it becomes very embarrassing. please. united states. no, it has to coach for support behind the i c. c. what? distance ticket, so from the 16th to 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 the 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 just sent to fly the narrative position on any case, especially the united states is ultimately claiming to be above the law above

international law. or is it too much? am i taking it so far? maybe that's putting it to too high, but i think we could draw post i gave of this the at the to the united states or israel of in the straits. my photo industry is different comments. the ultimate 15, not just states has special rules for page 3 in the case of israel winches, united states. because there's to accept the legality. ot antics ation of eastern system, which is really good, set embassy to duration. but it also seems to accept the uh, no furnace of the de facto alex ation or the west bank. so it's really

opposed to annual 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's not only unethical or immoral, but it's highly dangerous because of a almost negligible increase in balances. and then unit to you within the international system, undermines the very problem. 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 flaw? useful to double standard use a period coming in the international relations body because unfortunately 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 couldn't decode just with the strange institution called the rules based 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

since world war 2, united states has fostered extremist anti russian prejudices and hatreds among the ukrainian d. as for 10, at least in canada, united states and countries in eastern europe, probably everywhere in the world, it doesn't matter what these groups say or do. they will support them if it is, the groups are causing hatred and chaos within the target country. joe or get might done on the choose the country, joe, or sort of you well, i suppose what is the list? so 1st these of potatoes using just $50.00. let me see. i see a uses anyone at any site if there's a religion the

the welcome back to world supports with john silver is a professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission. now uh, purpose and degree 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 to criticize 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 of my difficulties, doug,

doug? crazy know what the, those base order is intended to be. and i think most your pin, they just did not dies as they used to be loose. the sometimes is sending them for international. sometimes they use the term goals based. ok, so i don't know what the purpose of the rules by story is, but certainly it's a nice the rest of the world is not the only china, the russian federation in india that, that difficulties with. that being said, that the global sauce is also concerned about the failure of the wasted pause and united states and to connect to pay by the rules of international norm. and i think this may be one of the reasons why the united states is not able to gather as much support as you would like. was yet. sanctions

to gauge the restaurant respect would be great because they didn't do global stuff . wendy has been informed, told over the years that you must comply with international law as it is generally understood the charter to not have no issues and no responders to preston because we're not to stay. should we stick group stay at to say that they are being governed by some strange creature which is not the internet, google 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 an inbuilt benefit of predictability. if you play by the rules, you can expect that others play by the 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 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 understand it. use a unit, lucas or the go over that, which governs all stage. the results here. we know who makes the rules. and we know how to space relation to the rules. can be filtered by international tribunals was

the international court of justice. but toby, in the situation way, we ought to be governed by some what this system with the rules. i know it gets quite a bit difficult to do it. 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, reduced 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 beach go talk to essentially 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 west 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 at 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 subject 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 don't think united states has paid much attention to i have a feeling that present barton just has the vision to the international because the rules are strict and they uh, remove that fixed ability that you're not just stage where the i can respect to rich 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 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 revolved around the rules based order. which as we discussed as a much narrower concept and also much less legitimate concept is not widely accepted by the international community. why do you think washington is rooting of the blame of russia within the army or confines so rather than using the advantage, the propaganda advantage of international law lewis 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 the guys, the territory,

the 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 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 boost 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 cars. i mean,

he takes legal reasoning pretty seriously, but he also made the a number of statements to the fact 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 then becomes either, you know, a political to, or a weapon. uh, 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 credit search oral 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 metro 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 uh, a dealt with it could oppose this particular to dispute j t g a h. and after court of justice, in order to say that it's the to the, as the means, which might have been for the churches at negotiation, but to i don't want to engage as a whole history of a dispute of the ukraine. uh, if you say a quick thing to say when i was much young guy got into the imprints of a great depression. ok. the american international relations expert, george george clinton 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 uh, writing and thinking of the time when the international relations were far more straightforward. and there 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. not only with their rules based order because it's a very ambiguous concept. you know, if the assigns responsibilities 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 a 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 there are so many special cases. i think they keep getting broken to pay so, 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 and the independence to understand this of wished

some people fuses 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 that are in but i do not use search and the wished guys rushes innovation in ukraine are precisely the same issues that a p a lea, uh, is the pedestal clinic. you do have an acceleration manual for that makes ation occupation 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 about the 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 choose the trib concentra, which i think is the key word. international law is premised on the concepts of states as a see 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 roots based engine next order states have not consented to it. and when called to have a legal order or some sort of international order room based order to which states have not, you can change it. and that is really the route 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 can sense to it. yeah, and equality to is equal price of states. ok, well professor degrees, 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 speak to a kia and thank you for watching. i hope to see her again on a walter part the

the

the is ready for us as bombarding and nolan, gaza overnight raising the pallets. and how does he invest over? fortunately, as we understand, it's nearing the number of 10000 re time thousands of demonstrators making that feeling spelled across the world, calling on the international community to demand a ceasefire. also among the other stories that shape the week here on out to you international the road used to be home to the 2000 people. but certainly you don't want to anymore. what was one's a lively community? so you now really has a few souls remaining all to travel to a one viper and is really bored a town whose inhabitants plant out there.