There seems to be little taste for major celebrities to meet in the middle now that there has been a new level of tremendous strength competition. This explosive setting makes international cooperation more and more difficult and obscure.
The abuse on the rules-based global order, a long-standing mainstay of Western foreign policy, is one of the most obvious indicators of these turbulent days.
Although the word was only coined after the Cold War, says ‘ commitments to a specific order, primarily for peace and security, can be traced back to the important efforts made to restore order after the Second World War.
Although the idea can be used to mean a lot of different items, it is typically understood as a shared responsibility by states to carry out their actions in accordance with a set of international law-based standards, regulations, and institutions.
But what particular laws is this order referring to? And who has the authority to impose them?
States and other foreign actors are subject to a variety of inconsistent, non-binding, and non-binding guidelines as well as double standards, all of which are intended to uphold general principles.
For instance, American leaders take part in the collection of evidence for the Russia-Ukraine conflict but disapprove of the Israel-Hamas conflict in the same way. Governments also criticize the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) for pursuing an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister while supporting the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) for prosecuting Russia’s leader for war crimes.  ,
The reality remains that the rules-based global order, also largely influenced by British liberalism, is now viewed by many as incapable of properly regulating, allow only structuring, a clear system of international governance.
The two main continued wars have recently pushed the global order to its limitations and sparked a semi-constitutional time in favor of other approaches to global cooperation.
The rules-based order’s character and layout must now be revised, despite the fact that this world has already been seen and that the post-war world order was specifically a direct result of two horrifying wars and a terrible economic melancholy.
This update is required to provide the ideas of other powers regarding international purchase and to stop the law of the jungle from enraging.
The reiteration of the essential significance of the Atlantic Alliance and NATO finding a new function are delightful improvements, especially in light of Europe’s answer to the conflict in Ukraine.
However, a wholesale approach may only contribute to the emergence of different sub-orders, potentially making the world order appear less integrated and, consequently, more simple or universally weaker.
To regain the rules-based global order from the precipice and increase its usefulness, two key variables must be considered.
First, the global order should be able to fit the new geopolitical and economic challenges by allowing for a more multilateral distribution of power that includes the federal visions of emerging center powers, primarily from the Global South.
These powers are extremely linked to a fresh Non-Aligned Movement, probably more powerful than its 20th-century forerunner. Engagements may become more common in connecting says that were previously excluded from rule-making as opposed to those from like-minded groups.
However, this equitable approach is necessary to reduce potential problems brought on by competing groups of like-minded says.
Second, the global order must establish a legal and administrative framework that adopts a rational approach to international cooperation and is grounded in basic principles and values.
Essentially, it should properly manage conflict between states, promote a more inclusive, equitable, adaptable, and lasting world political economy, allow for rule-setting by a varied range of state and non-state actors, and develop adequate international cooperation to address key transnational and planetary challenges.
What is the common ground of principles that could reasonably prevail for everyone and to which all parties could adhere?
This approach has a few chances of succeeding because it relies on international laws that not all states consider to be comparable to international law. Rules and norms serve as authoritative expressions of principles that define the objectives and course of collective action in international society, much like they do in domestic settings.
It is, therefore, the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and other international standards that must prevail. These include respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, and territorial integrity, as well as human rights, fundamental freedoms and an open international economic system.
These tenets serve as both a moral imperative and the legal foundation of international relations because they firmly bind the values of the majority of humanity.
Clearly, a rules-based order aligned with the UN entails privileges and hierarchy, notably within the Security Council. Nevertheless, it also represents a system where some power differentials are moderated to promote a more predictable environment, enabling diverse actors to participate in decision-making and have a voice.
At first glance, relying on the UN’s foundational principles may seem incompatible with the diversity, change and novelty of current events. How, then, can these opposing elements be reconciled into practical commitments?
These principles, in their conflicting implications, are unquestionably unable to automatically solve particular problems. They can be carefully balanced and weighed before coming up with rational solutions, though. They can be unified to function in harmony despite the conflict between principles and pressing needs.
Principles are flexible because they do n’t impose specific procedural patterns or specific action procedures. They allow for adaptation and can express opposing emotions. For instance, a principle like the observance of human rights is counterbalanced by the concept of non-intervention. In the same way, the principle of equality among states is always understood within a framework that includes the obligations of major powers.
Former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once understood this: international affairs are a forum for discussion between various actors in the international community regarding the legitimacy of state behavior. Leaders also affirm and validate these rights as states assert their rights through actions that uphold credibility.
What remains to be determined is the space for global cooperation on issues crucial to humanity’s existence: climate change and biodiversity, long-term peace and security, including responsible conduct in outer space, the cyber domain and artificial intelligence, and the commitment to human rights and other fundamental freedoms. These growth pillars require putting aside competitive advantages brought on by bilateral or regional rivalries.  ,
Finding common interests as the foundation for joint action and agreed standards is a crucial component of ensuring sustainable adhesion to these principles. The Biden administration’s proposed concept of “diplomatic variable geometry” promotes a pragmatic approach where each problem is addressed through a specific combination of partners. It is crucial to involve substate actors, civil society, and states in order for these arrangements to succeed.
In addition to fostering new global standards, new transnational organizations and arrangements will be crucial for maintaining cooperation in trade, development, finance, and monetary policy.
The Financial Action Task Force ( FATF), launched by the G7, is a valuable example. It addresses global terrorist financing and money laundering, setting up international standards to stop these illegal activities.
Additionally, various ad hoc approaches in different fields, such as the Major Economies Forum on climate change, the Nuclear Suppliers Group on nuclear issues and the Proliferation Security Initiative on missile proliferation, are already tackling specific challenges.
Such practical and practical steps can be used to influence the creation and successful application of international behavioral standards. They can give a new dimension and advance a principles-based global order for all people.
Eric Alter is an adjunct professor at the Paris School of International Affairs ( PSIA ), Sciences Po, and the dean of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi.