Sunday, February 18, 2018

Paul Robinson — Asymmetrical rules

Back in September I presented a paper at a conference in Moscow on the topic of ‘Human Rights Reasoning and Double Standards in the Rules-Based Order.’ In this I pointed out that both Russia and the West claimed to be in favour of a ‘rules-based order’ and that each accused the other of breaking that order. The problem, I conjectured, derives from differing understanding of what the rules are and how they should be applied.
Russia believes in a traditional, Westphalian, order in which states are equal sovereign entities. The rules apply equally to all of them, regardless of who they are or what they do. States may only take action against other states with the permission of a superior court, in other words the United Nations Security Council. Of course, Russia doesn’t 100% abide by the rules of its own model, but its preferred option remains one of legal symmetry – the same rules apply to all.
By contrast, human rights reasoning has pushed the West in an opposite direction, towards a preference for legal asymmetry. In this model, the just and the unjust, those who respect and those who don’t respect human rights, are not legally or morally equal....
Liberalism as theology.

It's right and just when we do it but wrong when other's do it — because "freedom and democracy."

Irrussianality
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa

See also

Intel Today
Former CIA Director James Woolsey: “US meddles in foreign elections – but only for a very good cause”

1 comment:

André said...

"Russia believes in a traditional, Westphalian, order in which states are equal sovereign entities. The rules apply equally to all of them, regardless of who they are or what they do"

History has shown us that this claim is simply not true.

The author clearly takes sides (Russia) and hence is not a reliable source.