The transition from international law properly considered to so-called "rules" mirrors the transition from constitutional law to administrative law, from statutory law and judges to bureaucratic fiat.
Wonderful article. But the cynic in me thinks are US "allies"-- ie are those who have been bought off by the US mafia through money or a piece of US action (think capo's under the mafia boss) really surprised when the mafia boss wants a favour in return? Kiss the ring and pledge allegiance (ie rules based order). All for money and power. Greed is a deadly sin.
Thank you Carol. You are correct, but the money is turning bad: it's getting more expensive and soon it will become worthless (well, soon enough) and everyone can see it.
The underlying issue that the West seems to have is that it's run out of new tricks. Thus, it keeps recycling all the old ones but the people are increasingly wising up to them!
Even in a rustic backwater like Georgia, where I was living for a while, when the GD party tried to outlaw certain types of NGO's earlier this year, the predictable NGO / young people-driven pushback did win the day and get rid of the ban. But not before a heap of regular Georgians also marched down Rustaveli demanding to get rid of the NGOs and the EU too.
I heard several stories from regular Georgian folk where they were getting increasingly suspicious about the EU and just what the real motivation for NGO presence in Georgia was.
I know that the Brits at least are aware that people are starting to see through the same old manipulation games. But they don't seem to have other options.
The lingo of "rules-based international order" evidently came into favor among Western elites at the precise moment when it became clear their claim to unipolar dominance was (and always has been) insupportable. It reminds me of the talk of "humanitarian" war from back in the 90s, when the empire of neo-conservatism began (under the Clintons!). What cloying verbiage!
This phrase is not American for "international law," because the US has never abided by international law and holds it in scant esteem. Neither has Europe, for that matter. Rather, it displaces and supplants the jus gentium wherever that gets in the way of American imperial designs and those of its vassals. It has nothing to do with the defense of "democracy" or liberal-representative ideals. It is short hand (though not very short) for "American unipolar dominance," that is, its right to deny other nations their right to sovereignty because of its moral superiority.
The idea that God (= History here) has chosen America to uphold what in effect would be a world state is as absurd as that European institutions such as the ICC or the ECHR actually represent "humanity" the same way the Pope represents Christ on earth.
True international law is a law of nations, not the residence of a special imperium that supposedly acts to maintain it. The law of nations allows for regional powers or "empires" (in the non-colonial or not neo-liberal sense) in which bigger nations serve to ballast smaller nations clustered around them. This intermediary between the small and the global creates order and truly viable rules that keep the peace (rules like: "don't put Nato on the border of Russia, dammit!").
The idea that all nations are equally sovereign, as if Estonia and the US were on the same level, the pretense of the US and Nato in the Ukraine business, is a bald-faced lie that actually serves the despotism of US empire. Estonian equality in that sense really means vassalage to the US--though it also means the US is subject to the vagaries of countries like Estonia, Poland, or Ukraine, so it is a principle of disorder, as we see in the US destruction of peace in Europe with its Nato policies.
The US simply does not recognize the "sovereignty" of other nations unless they serve its interests. The only law it truly recognizes is the law of hypocrisy and double- and triple-standards. Regional powers serve sovereignty better, paradoxical as that may sound, because they are capable of being truly multicultural, "ecumenic" empires that respect the differences of nations, as the US and the EU are absolute not.
What so amazing is the complete lack of awareness of second-order effects. Sanctions boomerang? Really? Who would have thought! Has the demise of an empire ever been hastened so greatly by the sheer arrogance and ineptitude and all-round dumbness of its protagonists?
Thank you Alex, this is the article that needed to be wrote. God bless France even under Macron; can you imagine how much further along we would be under Francois Fillon!
I dont know about Croatia but Greece certainly has its eye on this:
"that if they chose to join, they will not be penalized either for defaulting on their debt obligations to western financial institutions" Yessirree.
Thanks, Alex. A great piece, just a gentle reminder from Ed: “Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.” (Edmund Burke)
It brings to mind John Donne's "Manners, maths and meat makyth the man" - something to cosider in light of US woke behaviour, anti-mathism [because racist] , veganism and Trans. On a side note, why do they never question what is a man, as opposed to what is a woman.
On a mostly unrelated note: Is there an article explaining your background, I have read that you were born in Yugoslavia so I would like to know more about you.
Hi Dragan, yes I was born in Rijeka (1970) and lived in former YU mostly until the war. I served in Croatian army in 1995 and have been living abroad since 1996.
Though if you think of it, the name "rules-based" already explains it. If it was according to international law, that term would be "law-based".
As a side note ...
> How did they get 1 million emails? By illegal eavesdropping.
Got to bring up one of the most infamous figures of the last years here - Bill Gates.
Perhaps most of us know the legends of genius hacker and nerd who created Microsoft and made billions through his business acumen. All just legend, and BS legends at that.
He was just the straw man of a CIA/NSA project that preceeded Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, and he selected for the same reasons as e.g. Zuckerberg - nepotism, sociopathy, and controllability.
Micro$oft was pushed into the market with tax payers money to capture the growing business and home-computing niche, and keep a tab on the international information flow. Trust in US giants like IBM was very limited, so they had to come up with something new.
Anyone remembering the "NSA Key" scandal affecting Windows NT in 1999 ? And anyone believing the NSA just helped M$ to make Windows "safer for the user" ? Then I have a few bridges to sell ...
Though I heard only unconfirmed reports of European companies trying to file a patent, only to be preempted by an US counterpart by mere days. I wonder what might those European companies all have had in common ?!?
Thank you Frank! I remember all sorts of questiins going off when I learned thay Bill Gates' mother was on yhe board of directors of the IBM... How'd he get that DOS contract, and how he came in possession of DOS to begin with...
I was in IT in the late 80s early 90s and everyone around me followed the doings of Gates. It is incredible to recall the way the media, for the most part, worshipped him. The worst criticism was that he was bad tempered. And that was shrugged off as a natural trait of an impatient "genius". They played up his coding days in high school, but not the fact that he attended a private school and one of the few that had computers available. And never mind that he came from one of the richest and most well-connected families in the Northwest.
Thing is, I never paid that much attention to him. So when the lockdowns began and Gates was doing interviews almost daily it hit me like an ocean wave: the man is clearly a babbling idiot.
And then people like James Corbett started researching Gates and fascinating facts came out, such as the one Alex mentions here, about Mommy being on the board at IBM (who the hell has a mom on the board of IBM!?). Hence he got he the DOS contract with IBM through politics, not through being a wunderkind with computers, which is the story we were told for decades. And was the CIA and Deep State involved here? You bet!
Personally, I would take any French criticism of speculators with a grain of salt. The French use criticisms of capitalism as other people use punctuation - as a pause between ideas.
It is fair to criticize the financialization of everything and the institutional agendas that drive this trend with no regard for the people they are meant to represent. To blame the ills of the economy on independent speculators who:
1) Keep markets liquid, and
2) Correct the mispricing of assets,
while putting their own money and reputations on the line strikes me as far-fetched.
Montebourg makes some excellent points, and Alex summarizes the best of them. The attack on speculators is not one of them.
"To blame the ills of the economy on independent speculators who 1) Keep markets liquid, and 2) Correct the mispricing of assets,...while putting their own money and reputations on the line strikes me as far-fetched." ... A valid point! However, when speculators are the ones making the rules and those rules are manipulated to increase their wealth, they are no longer made for the benefit of economic and social needs and "independent" speculators and innovative entrepreneurs are at risk. Why would such things as naked short selling exist if not for the benefit of market forces that wish to discourage competition and monopolize their position?
He who orders the rules rules the order.
The transition from international law properly considered to so-called "rules" mirrors the transition from constitutional law to administrative law, from statutory law and judges to bureaucratic fiat.
Yes, excellent comment.
Wonderful article. But the cynic in me thinks are US "allies"-- ie are those who have been bought off by the US mafia through money or a piece of US action (think capo's under the mafia boss) really surprised when the mafia boss wants a favour in return? Kiss the ring and pledge allegiance (ie rules based order). All for money and power. Greed is a deadly sin.
Thank you Carol. You are correct, but the money is turning bad: it's getting more expensive and soon it will become worthless (well, soon enough) and everyone can see it.
The underlying issue that the West seems to have is that it's run out of new tricks. Thus, it keeps recycling all the old ones but the people are increasingly wising up to them!
Even in a rustic backwater like Georgia, where I was living for a while, when the GD party tried to outlaw certain types of NGO's earlier this year, the predictable NGO / young people-driven pushback did win the day and get rid of the ban. But not before a heap of regular Georgians also marched down Rustaveli demanding to get rid of the NGOs and the EU too.
I heard several stories from regular Georgian folk where they were getting increasingly suspicious about the EU and just what the real motivation for NGO presence in Georgia was.
I know that the Brits at least are aware that people are starting to see through the same old manipulation games. But they don't seem to have other options.
Yes, I think you are right. They've no new tricks, or none that effectively serve their agenda.
American exceptionalism= unabashed hypocrisy
European compliance= Stockholm syndrome
The lingo of "rules-based international order" evidently came into favor among Western elites at the precise moment when it became clear their claim to unipolar dominance was (and always has been) insupportable. It reminds me of the talk of "humanitarian" war from back in the 90s, when the empire of neo-conservatism began (under the Clintons!). What cloying verbiage!
This phrase is not American for "international law," because the US has never abided by international law and holds it in scant esteem. Neither has Europe, for that matter. Rather, it displaces and supplants the jus gentium wherever that gets in the way of American imperial designs and those of its vassals. It has nothing to do with the defense of "democracy" or liberal-representative ideals. It is short hand (though not very short) for "American unipolar dominance," that is, its right to deny other nations their right to sovereignty because of its moral superiority.
The idea that God (= History here) has chosen America to uphold what in effect would be a world state is as absurd as that European institutions such as the ICC or the ECHR actually represent "humanity" the same way the Pope represents Christ on earth.
True international law is a law of nations, not the residence of a special imperium that supposedly acts to maintain it. The law of nations allows for regional powers or "empires" (in the non-colonial or not neo-liberal sense) in which bigger nations serve to ballast smaller nations clustered around them. This intermediary between the small and the global creates order and truly viable rules that keep the peace (rules like: "don't put Nato on the border of Russia, dammit!").
The idea that all nations are equally sovereign, as if Estonia and the US were on the same level, the pretense of the US and Nato in the Ukraine business, is a bald-faced lie that actually serves the despotism of US empire. Estonian equality in that sense really means vassalage to the US--though it also means the US is subject to the vagaries of countries like Estonia, Poland, or Ukraine, so it is a principle of disorder, as we see in the US destruction of peace in Europe with its Nato policies.
The US simply does not recognize the "sovereignty" of other nations unless they serve its interests. The only law it truly recognizes is the law of hypocrisy and double- and triple-standards. Regional powers serve sovereignty better, paradoxical as that may sound, because they are capable of being truly multicultural, "ecumenic" empires that respect the differences of nations, as the US and the EU are absolute not.
Arbitrary rules. We make them up as needed.
Exactly.
This is looking like the beginning of the end for the financial Empire built over the last 300 years. Can't happen soon enough.
Yes, amen!
What so amazing is the complete lack of awareness of second-order effects. Sanctions boomerang? Really? Who would have thought! Has the demise of an empire ever been hastened so greatly by the sheer arrogance and ineptitude and all-round dumbness of its protagonists?
Thank you Alex, this is the article that needed to be wrote. God bless France even under Macron; can you imagine how much further along we would be under Francois Fillon!
I dont know about Croatia but Greece certainly has its eye on this:
"that if they chose to join, they will not be penalized either for defaulting on their debt obligations to western financial institutions" Yessirree.
Thank you Eleni!! 😊
Yes, what country will volunteer to be the test-case, to "bell the cat"?
Not Argentina, not Sri Lanka.
Who will repudiate $USdebt to spearhead this attack?
Thanks, Alex. A great piece, just a gentle reminder from Ed: “Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.” (Edmund Burke)
Thank you Rhone - great quote!
As Alex says, a great quote :-)
It brings to mind John Donne's "Manners, maths and meat makyth the man" - something to cosider in light of US woke behaviour, anti-mathism [because racist] , veganism and Trans. On a side note, why do they never question what is a man, as opposed to what is a woman.
Great article, as usual.
On a mostly unrelated note: Is there an article explaining your background, I have read that you were born in Yugoslavia so I would like to know more about you.
Hi Dragan, yes I was born in Rijeka (1970) and lived in former YU mostly until the war. I served in Croatian army in 1995 and have been living abroad since 1996.
Hvala
Nema na čemu! 😊👍
Another interesting article.
Though if you think of it, the name "rules-based" already explains it. If it was according to international law, that term would be "law-based".
As a side note ...
> How did they get 1 million emails? By illegal eavesdropping.
Got to bring up one of the most infamous figures of the last years here - Bill Gates.
Perhaps most of us know the legends of genius hacker and nerd who created Microsoft and made billions through his business acumen. All just legend, and BS legends at that.
He was just the straw man of a CIA/NSA project that preceeded Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, and he selected for the same reasons as e.g. Zuckerberg - nepotism, sociopathy, and controllability.
Micro$oft was pushed into the market with tax payers money to capture the growing business and home-computing niche, and keep a tab on the international information flow. Trust in US giants like IBM was very limited, so they had to come up with something new.
Anyone remembering the "NSA Key" scandal affecting Windows NT in 1999 ? And anyone believing the NSA just helped M$ to make Windows "safer for the user" ? Then I have a few bridges to sell ...
Though I heard only unconfirmed reports of European companies trying to file a patent, only to be preempted by an US counterpart by mere days. I wonder what might those European companies all have had in common ?!?
Thank you Frank! I remember all sorts of questiins going off when I learned thay Bill Gates' mother was on yhe board of directors of the IBM... How'd he get that DOS contract, and how he came in possession of DOS to begin with...
C'mon Alex, he found DOS in his garage :-)
I was in IT in the late 80s early 90s and everyone around me followed the doings of Gates. It is incredible to recall the way the media, for the most part, worshipped him. The worst criticism was that he was bad tempered. And that was shrugged off as a natural trait of an impatient "genius". They played up his coding days in high school, but not the fact that he attended a private school and one of the few that had computers available. And never mind that he came from one of the richest and most well-connected families in the Northwest.
Thing is, I never paid that much attention to him. So when the lockdowns began and Gates was doing interviews almost daily it hit me like an ocean wave: the man is clearly a babbling idiot.
And then people like James Corbett started researching Gates and fascinating facts came out, such as the one Alex mentions here, about Mommy being on the board at IBM (who the hell has a mom on the board of IBM!?). Hence he got he the DOS contract with IBM through politics, not through being a wunderkind with computers, which is the story we were told for decades. And was the CIA and Deep State involved here? You bet!
Thanks Alex, very insightful article. But, Montebourg points out global, senseless speculators as part of the main culprits.
Yet, Alex, aren't you making a bunch of money from what Montebourg is precisely denouncing?
How can you reconcile this all? Just curious.
Personally, I would take any French criticism of speculators with a grain of salt. The French use criticisms of capitalism as other people use punctuation - as a pause between ideas.
It is fair to criticize the financialization of everything and the institutional agendas that drive this trend with no regard for the people they are meant to represent. To blame the ills of the economy on independent speculators who:
1) Keep markets liquid, and
2) Correct the mispricing of assets,
while putting their own money and reputations on the line strikes me as far-fetched.
Montebourg makes some excellent points, and Alex summarizes the best of them. The attack on speculators is not one of them.
"To blame the ills of the economy on independent speculators who 1) Keep markets liquid, and 2) Correct the mispricing of assets,...while putting their own money and reputations on the line strikes me as far-fetched." ... A valid point! However, when speculators are the ones making the rules and those rules are manipulated to increase their wealth, they are no longer made for the benefit of economic and social needs and "independent" speculators and innovative entrepreneurs are at risk. Why would such things as naked short selling exist if not for the benefit of market forces that wish to discourage competition and monopolize their position?
No, I'm not making a bunch of money on this.
Rules are only as good as the enforcement and laws only as good as the judges.
.......one can only hope...
Thank you, Mr. Krainer.
"Rules-based international order."
Can't read that phrase without thinking of the god-damned Economist. It has been a mantra of theirs for years.
And The Economist is owned by Rothschild.
Yes, exactly.