itself to the media to reflect these crimes, to the world. furthermore, is real 6 to intimidate media outlets and imply to the rest of the reporters. that if you continue your activities, you will not have any unity. this allows israel to suppress the press in order to stop them from broadcasting the atrocities and go. so not only has a conflict inflicted and unprecedented tool on journalists, it has destroyed several buildings, housing, local, and international media outlets operating there. meanwhile, journalist here demand that formative organizations must hold some of these accountable for its disregard for the most basic human rights, including freedom of speech. the paleface has one. you also said that certain countries in the west are outraged over the rest of the journalists and countries that are not aligned with their policies. they have kept her mom over the killing of 35 journalists and gaza. they have not even condemned israel, or put pressure on it to at least ensure the safety of journalist during the war. seems that the price of vast does not provide any protection for journalists. we're

trying to draw a clear image of what's happening because people here say a more effective mechanism needs to be put to place my international organizations to ensure the safety of journalists working there. as i say, as well, we garza as well . but so for this view, the other was, it's great to have your company here on ok, i'm but the welcome to was 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 essential concepts such as justice and the quality of the ways they should be codified and implemented within the international system can last. it gives me a chance to without addressing those fundamental issues 1st. well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by john's degree that professor of international law who used to serve on the united nations international law commission professor degrades. it's a great honor of breast pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. thank you very much and the piece to be because as of 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. does you yet get mistakes? 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 he started, but his big a be a privilege and good the 5 digit ministration with there's a present binding and the secretary of state. and can you bring can and does a picture of it 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 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 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 no attempt has to be made by the by different is facing any serious part of the patient to explain exactly what it means and it has been mean it used to forgive but different orientations, which is just 2 or 3 days ago i heard just included in the face about the increase in dispute with india. the 3rd to the fact that he was complying with the rooms based on this,

i was surprised here just to use that to as a western leaders have used that to which i didn't say user with the same conviction and consistency as said, the members. okay, american administration. i think the british, oh, perhaps more prone to using that to me as the united states goes. 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 codified norm, the intense to put certain constrains on the others without restricting defining.

that's 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 a number of reasons west washington might prefer to use the rules based international order rather than international. at, in my recent article i suggested street weeds. the 1st is that the united states is not a party to a number of a significant important creatures take, for instance, or the sea convention as united states has not a party to this convention. and so for this reason, one finds that it to criticize is trying to was actions in this task, trying to see by everything to effect the child has by day to the international

rules based order role as an international frontier hosted by the treaties, particularly in the field of international emetic, terry law, or just an extra human rights you'll have to which united states is not a party type. for instance, the 1977, the protocol is to the geneva conventions on the normal united states is not a party to that is not a party to the ropes i teach on the international criminal court. it is the 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. 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 quality up on stage to imply with shirts and provisions of peace to which it is nor to parties to is this is a can respect to didn't know what was a c convention, but the me just mentioned that the problem is that is that the united states has recently decided to provide a ukraine, was to test a bunch this to be difficult to reconcile with the commitment of other members of the wish to launch to privilege the use of the testing munitions most western side, so a party to the convention prohibiting 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 difficult to united states gets into when it's just north of bulky to at any convention, pick it up takes off, but perhaps the most up to 6 on for the united states is the opposed to the international criminal court, you will recall that it's imposed sanctions on the full, 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 got any start. she was subjected to a color restrictions and a priest or in her assets. united states is your party because this conviction and says magic, they typically 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 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 american position on any case, especially in 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, to, to high. but i think the drop list i gave of this the at the to

the united states or the of the interest rates. my point to an industry is different. thomas said argument 50 not just states has special rules for page b. in the case of israel points, so not to states because there is to accept the integrative t o t next ation of each the rest of which is moving it, set embassy to duration. but it also seems to accept the uh, no furnace of the de facto eric station or the west bank. so it's really opposed to little foot alex ations in respect of the premier. 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 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, but it was 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 actually, nicole just was

a strange institution called the rules based order, which is not international. and what i can go to watch is now professor and the grades. we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments state you in the the

welcome back to the 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 my difficulties? i don't really know what the goal is based on what is intended to be. and i think most your pin they just did not dies, as they used to be loosely sometimes as sending them for international. sometimes they use the term goals based. ok,

so i don't know what the purpose of the village by stories, but certainly it alienates the rest of the world and not to own the china russian federation. india that, that difficult. this research. i think that the global sauce is more so concerned about the failure of the wasted pause and united states and to connect to pay by the rules of international law. and i think this paper, one of the reasons why the united states is not able to gather as much support as you would like, was the sanction to gauge to russia in respect to be great. because the need to global stuff. it really has been in full told over the years that you must comply with international law as it is

generally understood the charge of the united nations. and now is probably just the president of the united states to restrict group 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 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 is 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, the international court of justice. but toby and the situation way, we ought to be governed by some i'm office system with the rules. i know that's why this is difficult to just i have,

i do not know what the rules of the rules basting to an extra order. oh, and who makes the rules? clearly the rules are not made by the international commission. what was the 6 committee or the general assembly? i get the impression, it's a rule. so those rules that to shoot to imagine states and possibly twisted that allows. but i think it's more the legal system or not the legal system, the system of rules that, that is devised by united states disputing environment. 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 testing agreement amongst wisdom, pause as to what the rules are, what's based order. oh, that says i haven't beach go talk to says me just go with 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 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 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 subject to the task because united states and especially give buzz to have c v ties. so i'm going to

say that that, that's the reason what's the real is basically, what does it do not stay says pay much attention to i have a feeling that present by 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 like and respect to rich international relations and in this exception, as with respect of 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 your, 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, is

a much narrower concept and also much less legitimate. the concept is not widely accepted by the international community. why do you think uh, washington is routing is 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 in ukraine is 2 or kids that get the united nations charter prohibits needing support guides to the territory, take with t o, particularly dependent children as the state. and the skype from that probably be she is a self to page. i rush, it has argued a shelter page, but quite frankly, not really convincingly, but i will just start with that as a much better framework in which to approach so mentor. but consider that. well,

i might just mention before that the european union has condemned russia. ringback in terms of international norm, so, so united states, the budget registration, the 3rd is to put the risk into the re loose based into an extra 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, she 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 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. it's 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 the process to get to the dispute, say, to the international 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 i don't

want to, again, to the whole history of the dispute of the ukraine. if you say, quite frankly, that when i was much younger, i built into the imprints of a great depression or great american international relations expert, george george clinton and george kevin will be i strongly said that it was in the best interest of the west not to extend nato to uh, ukraine. and it seems that the sound but as well. and your and george carolyn was the writing and thinking of the time when the international relations for a farm was straightforward. and there wasn't a 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 the 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 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 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. i'm quite frankly, i'm be distressed about the present state of the international go,

because there are so many special cases. i think they keep being broken in the case of but it's not just done for many years. and, and there's, this is a case in which the, which the united states, in particular, a gift of care were double standards and they refused to apply international. was it the rule which we can understand in berks international in order to achieve at the have additional delta patient and the independent to understand this of wished some people fuses to apply international as their 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 power stein calling. vicki new has an exception annual frantic sation occupation room to 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 semester 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 the enter 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. other. do you think there is anything, 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 see yet to, to consent to stacy international customers. know what the express current 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 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 the content. and if it applies to everybody who can sense to it. yeah. and the quality 2 is equal price of states. okay, 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 speed receiving trading. i can assist you. thank you for watching. i hope to see you again on walter part the,

[000:00:00;00] the israel says is full if is have races, if the effect of the splitting of the in hot of the me. it's completely surrounded by the house. that though is at the age of a closer to 10000 ross used to be home to around 30000 people. but certainly don't want to anymore. what was was a lawyer. the community is reduced so it goes town off he travels so it is really