Recent searches
Search options
Robert Shrimsley (FT) is right; those in the UK who think the rule of law should be (partly) jettisoned are mistaken:
'Britain’s self-interest lies in fighting efforts to erode international law. The alternative is a return to the might-is-right approach Trump appears to be hastening. This may suit the US or China but those who think it serves the UK have an outdated view of its weight in the world';
The rule of law can (should) protect the less powerful & that is now us...
@ChrisMayLA6 I fear that despite our wishes the global bourgeoisie have very few (if any) "common affairs" for a rules based international legal framework to rest upon.
We're in a period of reformation around multi-polar power. I'm really not hopeful for the EU never mind our delusional UK
Hmmm..... the history of international law (which far precedes the emergence of the global bourgeoisie), might suggest states for the most part will continue (contra Trump) to see the value of the rule of law.
I'm sure you're right that most states will seek some form of stable relationship framework, but I'm not sure to what extent that will be practically possible as numerous forces divide and compete around the globe.
My fear is that we're re-entering a period of enforcement being via gun barrels
Well, that's certainly not impossible.... but my guess is what we'll see is a shift to a more transactional view of the law; 'we will follow the rules that benefit us in our interactions with you....' - for states with a medium term strategy that does actually suggest quite wide reciprocity, for state with a time horizon of weeks/months it *does* suggest a rapid decline in rule following - so we may end up partly where you suspect