Davos Exposes U.S. and EU Hypocrisy on “Rules”

by Francesco Sylos Labini

Comments

The difference between United Nations international law and the so-called “rules-based international order” (RBIO) is not merely conceptual: it is substantial and politically decisive. International law constitutes a body of binding legal norms governing relations among sovereign states. Its foundations lie in the 1945 UN Charter, in multilateral treaties, and in the decisions of bodies such as the International Court of Justice, among others. Its core principles are state sovereignty and legal equality, non-interference in internal affairs, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and above all the prohibition of the use of force, except in cases of self-defense or explicit authorization by the UN Security Council. It is a codified, multilateral, universally recognized, and formally binding body of law.

Of an entirely different nature is the so-called RBIO. This concept has no legal foundation but a geopolitical one. It is an ideological construction promoted primarily by Western countries, referring to a set of norms, practices, and values that do not necessarily coincide with codified international law, but which these states deem legitimate on the basis of their own worldview. The RBIO in fact includes decision-making and enforcement mechanisms located outside the UN framework. This “order” is frequently invoked to justify unilateral or multilateral interventions not authorized by the Security Council, in the name of protecting human rights, liberal democracy, or global security.

The RBIO therefore does not rest on a universally shared legal framework, but rather on a selective normative vision, constructed and imposed by a power bloc that controls the main global economic, military, and media institutions. In short, while international law is law, the RBIO is politics.

This hypocrisy was recently acknowledged in a surprisingly explicit way by Mark Carney, Canadian prime minister and former governor of the Bank of England, during a speech at the Davos Forum. Carney openly admitted that Western leaders had long known that the RBIO narrative was a useful fiction: “We knew the RBIO narrative was partly false: the strongest would exempt themselves from the rules when it suited them, and trade rules would be applied asymmetrically. We knew international law would be enforced with variable rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim. This fiction was useful… so we put the sign in the shop window, took part in the rituals, and avoided highlighting the gap between rhetoric and reality. But this pact no longer works. We are in the middle of a rupture, not a transition.”

Carney also acknowledged that American hegemony had provided global public goods—security, maritime routes, financial stability—but that today major powers have begun to use economic integration as a weapon: from tariffs to value chains, all the way to sanctions. Why such a disruptive statement now? Because for the first time, coercion is not directed at “others,” but at Europe itself. Donald Trump’s declared intention to annex, in one way or another, Greenland—a territory belonging to a European country—marks a symbolic turning point. The fundamental difference between Trump and previous U.S. presidents is that Trump treats Europe exactly as the United States has always treated the rest of the world.

This reversal of perspective is made possible by the gradual economic and strategic decline of the European continent: lacking strategic natural resources, trapped in structural energy dependence, and increasingly marginal in technological innovation. In this context, the hollowing out of international law and its replacement with a set of arbitrary pseudo-norms—the RBIO—now reveal their full hypocrisy. Because, for the first time, systemic coercion is not falling on distant countries, but is aimed at Europe itself.

And this time, no one will come to save us. We believed the danger came from Russia, imagining an invasion of Europe. But we chose the wrong ally. Now that the threat comes directly from the United States, the illusion dissolves, and with it the strategic incapacity of Europe’s elites is definitively laid bare: devoid of vision, dependent on external powers, and incapable of defending the interests of the continent they claim to represent.

Published in Il Fatto Quotidiano