The Term “Rules-based International Order” in International Legal Discourses

INTRODUCTION. The term “rules-based order” is increasingly referred to in speeches within many international forums as well as declared from national political tribunes. The initial question is whether this notion is of purely political nature (since it is not used in the UN Charter or in other universal international conventions and this term is not relied upon by the International Court of Justice or by the UN International Law Commission). On the other hand, with the popularization of such a political discourse, the frequent usage of this term by representatives of some states (not only of Western States, but also of China, for example) can affect international law. The very application of this term definitely provokes a splash of other questions. How does the term “rules-based order” correlate with the universally recognized term “international legal order”? Does the idea to use the term “rules-based order” have substantive legal grounds? Which rules in concreto1 are meant by the term? Who and how creates these rules? What is the nature of these rules – are they rules of national law and if so – national rules of what State? If these are rules of international law – why is it not reflected in the term? Due to the attractive wording the concept gets widespread, but lacking a common understanding of its content, everyone might put a different meaning into the concept. Does it result in the fact that some officials, representing states, become politically entitled with the right to abuse the international legal order as it is established by modern international law? This research examines these theoretic aspects of the concept “rules-based order”, taking into account that in the context of international relations it may be referred to also as “rules-based international order”. An additional question to answer is whether the concept might be regarded as one of the numerous attempts to adapt the current international law to new challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research paper is based on the analysis of numerous statements of representatives of states, in which their attitude to the “rules-based order” concept is manifested, positive and critical remarks relating to the concept made by international lawyers, as well as other research papers of Russian and foreign international scholars. The methodological instruments include general scientific and special methods, among them the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Although the above-noted questions about the legal meaning of the term “rulesbased order” have arisen only in recent years mainly in the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric of Western politicians, the term has been used much earlier at different levels in a wide variety of topics. The question of inconsistent perceptions of this term is another reflection of a more general problem of weakening or strengthening the universal legally binding international order. One of the appropriate interpretive versions of this concept might be that “rules-based order” means first and foremost the world order which is based on norms of international law (which are mandatory as well known), and on applicable non-binding international rules containing a normative element, such as international rules provided in the documents of intergovernmental organizations and conferences, interstate political arrangements, and other mutually accepted rules, formed in the contemporary practice of international relations. This interpretation allows to bring the concept in line with modern international law. Nevertheless, even within such interpretation, it is necessary to respect the distinction between the norms of international law, which are binding, and other rules, which do not create State’s obligations under international law. Thus, unilateral or “blocking” imposition of values of one State on other States under the guise of rules on which, according to the first State, the world order is based, will not be allowed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. If another interpretation prevails, the “rules-based order” concept may have a negative impact on the existing international legal order insofar as it “washes out” the established legitimate procedures of international law-making, thus rejecting traditional international values of legal stability and diminishing the role of international law in international relations. Such scenario would not only multiply legal uncertainly and even unreasonable expectations among the participants of the international processes, but also might lead to undermining the very fundamentals of modern international law based on the UN Charter. The latter in its turn will inevitably lead to the global legal instability and will dramatically increase the risks of World War III. At the moment, the frequent abuse of the term “rules-based order” by the representatives of the NATO countries in support of their politically motivated statements, agreed upon only among them, impedes achievement of accepted understanding of the concept at the universal level, that might be consistent with international law.

1. Abashidze A.Kh., Mel'shina K.Yu. Verkhovenstvo prava, ponimaemoe Organizatsiei Ob"edinennykh Natsii [Supremacy of law in the UN conception]. – Vestnik VolGU. Seriya 5, Yurisprudentsiya. 2016. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 10-18. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu5.2016.4.1

2. Ablaeva E. B. "Rule of law" v rabote mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii. [“Rule of law” in the work of international organizations]. – Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve. 2017. No. 7.P. 193-200. (In Russ)

3. Allison R. Russian Revisionism, Legal Discourse and the ‘Rules-Based’ International Order. – Europe-Asia Studies. 2020. Vol.72. Issue 6. P. 976-995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1 080/09668136.2020.1773406

4. Austin. J. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521546.006

5. Bishop W. The International Rule of Law. – Michigan Law Review. 1961. Vol. 59. Issue 4. P. 553-574.

6. Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books. 1997.256 p.

7. Chalmers M. Which Rules? Why There is No Single ‘RulesBased International System’. – Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies Occasional Paper. 2019. April. URL: https://rusieurope.eu/sites/default/ files/201905_op_which_rules_why_there_is_no_single_ rules_based_international_system_web.pdf (accessed 20.12.2020)

8. De Baere G., Chané A.-L., Wouters J. Assessing the Contribution of the International Judiciary to the Rule of Law: Elements of a Roadmap. – Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper. 2015. No. 157. 45 p. URL: https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2704266_ code1616973.pdf?abstractid=2704266&mirid=1 (accessed 20.12.2020)

9. Fisher R. Bringing Law to Bear on Governments. – Harvard Law Review. 1961. Vol. 74. No. 6. P. 1130-1140.

10. Graham T. U.S.-Russian Relations in a New Era. – SShA i Kanada: politika, ekonomika, kul'tura. 2019. No. 1. P. 76-89. DOI: 10.31857/S032120680003607-1

11. Grinin L. E. Global'nye protsessy i kontury novogo mirovogo poryadka [Global processes and contours of the new world order]. – Filosofiya i obshhestvo. 2015 .No. 3-4. P. 7-33. (In Russ.)

12. Groff M., Larik J. Strengthening the Rules-based global order. The Case for an International Rule of Law Package. Leiden. 2020. 13 p. URL: https://www.stimson.org/2020/strengthening-the-rules-based-global-order-the-case-for-an-international-rule-of-law-package/ (accessed 20.12.2020)

13. Grotius H. De jure belli ac pacis (Russ. ed.: Grotius H. O prave voiny i mira. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ. 1956. 868 p.)

14. Hakimi M. Constructing an International Community. – American Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 111. Issue 2. P. 317-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ ajil.2017.22

15. Hall S. The Persistent Spectra: Natural law, International Order and the Limits of legal positivism. – European Journal of International Relations. 2011. Vol. 12. Issue 2. 2011. P. 269-307.DOI: 10.1093/ejil/12.2.269

16. Hart H.L.A. The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Law Series. 1997.315 p.

17. Ikejiaku B. 2014. International Law is Western Made Global Law: The Perception of Third-World Category. – African Journal of Legal Studies. 2014. Vol. 6. Issue 2-3. P. 337-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-12342022

18. Ikenberry G. J. The Future of the Liberal World Order. – Foreign Affairs. 2011a.May-June. P 56-68.

19. Ikenberry G. J. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2011b. 392 p.

20. Ikenberry, G. J. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 2001. 312 p.

21. Institut de Droit International: Annuaire. Vol. 61 (I). Paris: Pedone. 1985.474 p.

22. Jain A., Kroenig M. Present at the re-creation: A global strategy for revitalizing, adapting, and defending a rulesbased international system. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council. 2019. 72 p.

23. Jenks W. The Prospects of International Adjudication. London: Stevens. 1964. 805 p.

24. Kelsen H. Pure Theory of Law (Russ. ed.: Kelsen H. Chistoe uchenie o prave. Saint Petersbur: OOO Izdatel'skii Dom “Alef-Press” Publ. 542 p.)

25. Kissinger G. World Order (Russ. ed.: Kissinger G. Mirovoi poryadok. Moscow: AST Publ. 2015. 226 p.)

26. Koskenniemi M. 2019. Imagining the Rule of Law: Rereading the Grotian ‘Tradition’. – European Journal of International Law. 2019. Vol. 30. Issue 1. P.17-52. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/ejil/chz017

27. Koskenniemi M. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511493713.

28. Koskenniemi M. Lauterpacht: the Victorian Tradition in International Law. – European Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol. 8. Issue 2. P. 215-263. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a015565

29. Koskenniemi M. Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law. – European Journal of International Relations. 2009. Vol. 15. Issue 3. P. 395-422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109338229

30. Krieger H., Nolte G. The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline? Points of Departure. – KFG Working Paper Series. 2016. No. 1. 25 p. URL: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/ opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/41952/file/ kfg_wps01.pdf (accessed 20.12.2020)

31. Kundnani H. What is the Liberal International Order? Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States. 2017. 10 p.

32. Lauterpacht H. The Function of Law in the International Community. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2000. 470 p.

33. Lavrov S. V. Mir na pereput''e i sistema mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiv budushchem [The World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future]. – Rossiya v global'noi politike. 2019.Vol. 17. Issue 5.P. 28-38. (In Russ.)

34. Llamzon A. Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. – European Journal of International Law. 2007. Vol. 18. Issue 5. P. 815- 852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm047

35. Mazarr M. J. [et al.]. Understanding the current international order. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation. 2016. 64 р. URL: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1598/RAND_RR1598. pdf (accessed 28.12.2020).

36. Menon S. The Rule of Law, the International Legal Order, and the Foreign Policy of Small States. – Asian Journal of International Law. 2020. Vol.10. No. 1.P. 50-67. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1017/S2044251319000262

37. Müllerson R. Kak liberalizm vstupil v konflikt s demokratiei [How liberalism came into conflict with democracy]. – Rossiya v global'noi politike. 2020. Vol. 18. No. 5. P. 43-59. (In Russ.)

38. Narushenie SShA norm mezhdunarodnogo prava. Otv. red. M.M. Avakov [Violations of international law by the USA. Ed. by M.M. Avakov]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ.1984. 194 p. (In Russ.)

39. Nieuwenhuizen S. Australian and People's Republic of China government conceptions of the international order. – Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2019. Vol. 73. Issue 2. P. 181-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357 718.2019.1568386

40. Nye J. “Myagkaya” sila i amerikano-evropeiskie otnosheniya [Soft power and the US-European relations]. – Svobodnaya mysl'. 2004 No. 10. P.33-41. (In Russ.)

41. Nye J.S., Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. 1990. 261 р.

42. Nye J.S., Jr. The rise and fall of American hegemony from Wilson to Trump. – International Affairs. 2019. Vol. 95. Issue 1. P. 63-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy212

43. Oppenheim L.F.L. International Law. A Treatise. Vol. I. Peace. London: Longmans. 1905. 610 p.

44. Patrick S. World Order: What, Exactly, Are the Rules?. – The Washington Quarterly. 2016. Vol. 39. Issue 1. P.7-27.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2016.1170477

45. Paulson C. Compliance with Final Judgements of the International Court of Justice since 1987. – American Journal of International Law. 2004. Vol. 98. Issue 3. P. 434-461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3181640

46. Schwarzenberger G., Brown E.D. A Manual of International Law. 6th ed. Oxon, Professional Books.1976. 612 p.

47. Scott Sh. International Law as Ideology: Theorising the Relationship between International Law and International Politics. – European Journal of International Law. 1994. Vol. 5. Issue 3.P. 313-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035873

48. Scott Sh. The Decline of International Law as a Normative Ideal. – Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. 2018. Vol. 49. No.4.P. 627-644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v49i4.5344

49. The Contribution of International Organisations to a rulebased international system. New York: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2019. 24 р. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/IORule-Based%20System.pdf (accessed 28.12.2020).

50. Trindade Cançado. A. Prologue: An Overview of the Contribution of International Tribunals to the Rule of Law”. – The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law. Edited by Geert De Baere and Jan Wouters.Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Pub. P. 3-18.

51. Troekurov N. E. Verkhovenstvo prava v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh. Monografiya [The rule of law in modern international relations. A monograph]. Moscow: Nauchnaya kniga. 2006. 88 p.(In Russ.)

52. Tunkin G. International Law in the International System. – Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Vol. 147. The Hague : Springer. 1978. 393 p. DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_ A9789028610088_01

53. United Nations Association of Australia: The United Nations and the rules-based international order. 2015. 24 p. https:// www.unaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UNAA_ RulesBasedOrder_ARTweb3.pdf (accessed 28.12. 2020)

54. Vylegzhanin A.N., Kritskiy K.V. Souchastie SShA v gosudarstvennom perevorote v Kieve - eto mezhdunarodnoe pravonarushenie [US Complicity in the 2014 Coup d’etat in Kiev is an International Crime]. – Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. 2019. No. 3. P. 2-19. (In Russ.)

55. Watts A. The International Rule of Law. – German Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 36. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. 1993. P. 15-45.