Clashing over Israeli war conduct and a Palestinian state, Biden as global leader--supposedly tasked to enforce universal rules--fails to rein in the embattled Netanyahu's volcanic tribalism
Interesting read. A 'rules-based order' seems to be a logical follow up to an order based on international law. The latter allows a hegemon to take the actual moral high ground by preaching as well as practicing that all nations are equal before the law. However, it is rigid and seems to work well only in times of relative global stability. As these are not stable times the law based order does not serve a hegemon to conserve the organisation (structure of relationships) it has built and is a part off. Rather it is perceived as a threat. A 'rules-based order' ... to the extend a hegemon can get away with it ... provides much more flexibility to conserve the status quo in unstable times. This conserving of organisation is of course not something that is only attempted by a hegemon, but any living system including tribes.
Thanks. Yes, I agree. First the universalist order is set up based on international law. The hegemon naturally has many advantages but eventually one or several nations learn to use the order to their advantage and launch on a trajectory of power that threatens the hegemon. Now is the time for the partisan "rules-based" order where the hegemon desperately tries to preserve his position. If this works and the challengers are chastised then eventually the order based on international law is re-established. But if the rules-based move fails, a period of war follows and eventually a new hegemon emerges to set up his own international law system. Or something like that!
That sounds very much like what cyberneticist Ross Ashby was talking about when pointing out that dynamic systems change their internal organisations spontaneously (i.e. they break) until they arrive at some state of equilibrium (i.e. an internal organisation that is able to maintain a stable relationship with that part of the total environment that is affected by and affects the dynamic system). When the environment changes to such an extent that the internal organisation of the dynamic system is no longer able to maintain its organisation (your preservation of position) and thus its structural coupling to the environment it depends on to meet its needs, the dynamic system needs to change its organisation in order to maintain adaptation to its environment. As you point out a rules-based order gives the hegemon the necessary flexibility to chastise challengers, restore "order" and re-establish international law.
Interesting read. A 'rules-based order' seems to be a logical follow up to an order based on international law. The latter allows a hegemon to take the actual moral high ground by preaching as well as practicing that all nations are equal before the law. However, it is rigid and seems to work well only in times of relative global stability. As these are not stable times the law based order does not serve a hegemon to conserve the organisation (structure of relationships) it has built and is a part off. Rather it is perceived as a threat. A 'rules-based order' ... to the extend a hegemon can get away with it ... provides much more flexibility to conserve the status quo in unstable times. This conserving of organisation is of course not something that is only attempted by a hegemon, but any living system including tribes.
Thanks. Yes, I agree. First the universalist order is set up based on international law. The hegemon naturally has many advantages but eventually one or several nations learn to use the order to their advantage and launch on a trajectory of power that threatens the hegemon. Now is the time for the partisan "rules-based" order where the hegemon desperately tries to preserve his position. If this works and the challengers are chastised then eventually the order based on international law is re-established. But if the rules-based move fails, a period of war follows and eventually a new hegemon emerges to set up his own international law system. Or something like that!
That sounds very much like what cyberneticist Ross Ashby was talking about when pointing out that dynamic systems change their internal organisations spontaneously (i.e. they break) until they arrive at some state of equilibrium (i.e. an internal organisation that is able to maintain a stable relationship with that part of the total environment that is affected by and affects the dynamic system). When the environment changes to such an extent that the internal organisation of the dynamic system is no longer able to maintain its organisation (your preservation of position) and thus its structural coupling to the environment it depends on to meet its needs, the dynamic system needs to change its organisation in order to maintain adaptation to its environment. As you point out a rules-based order gives the hegemon the necessary flexibility to chastise challengers, restore "order" and re-establish international law.