Rules-Based International Order: Shared Commitment, Different Emphases
Both Canada and the United States express commitment to the "rules-based international order," the post-World War II system of international institutions, agreements, and norms that has governed international relations for over seventy-five years. However, what each country means by this commitment and how consistently each upholds it differ in important ways. Understanding these differences illuminates a fundamental dimension of the bilateral relationship and Canadian foreign policy more broadly.
What Is the Rules-Based Order?
The rules-based international order encompasses the United Nations system, international law, trade agreements, arms control regimes, human rights frameworks, and the broader expectation that states conduct themselves according to agreed rules rather than pure power politics. This system emerged from American leadership after World War II but includes genuinely multilateral elements.
The order assumes that even powerful states will generally follow rules, that institutions will resolve disputes, and that norms will constrain behaviour. These assumptions contrast with realist perspectives emphasizing power as the primary determinant of international outcomes.
Critics note that the "rules-based order" often reflects Western, particularly American, interests and values. Rules that powerful states wrote to serve their purposes may not represent universal norms. Whose rules and whose order are legitimate questions.
Canadian Commitment
Canada has been a consistent advocate for international rules and institutions since helping create them. As a middle power unable to achieve objectives through sheer power, Canada benefits from systems where rules constrain the powerful and enable collective action.
Canadian foreign policy has emphasized multilateral institutions, international law, and collective approaches to global challenges. Peacekeeping contributions, leadership on specific issues, and consistent engagement with international forums reflect this orientation.
For Canada, the rules-based order provides protection from the arbitrary exercise of power by larger states, including the United States. When rules govern relations, Canada's interests are more secure than when outcomes depend on power alone.
American Ambivalence
The United States has had a more complex relationship with the international order it helped create. American power enables unilateral action that rules might constrain. Domestic resistance to international constraints on American sovereignty has limited American commitment to many international frameworks.
American exceptionalism suggests that the United States should not be subject to the same rules as other nations. This belief manifests in non-ratification of treaties, rejection of international court jurisdiction, and unilateral actions that bypass international processes.
Yet the United States also benefits from and supports elements of the rules-based order. Trade rules, alliance structures, and norms against territorial aggression serve American interests. Selective support for rules characterizes American engagement.
Areas of Alignment
Canada and the United States align in supporting core elements of international order. Both oppose territorial aggression, as demonstrated by united response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Both generally support free trade principles despite specific disputes. Both engage with alliance structures including NATO.
On many issues, Canadian and American positions within international forums align. This coordination amplifies influence and demonstrates democratic consensus on international questions.
When threats to international order emerge, Canada and the United States often respond together. The shared commitment, though differently emphasized, creates common ground for action.
Areas of Divergence
Significant divergences exist. The United States has not joined international frameworks that Canada supports, including the International Criminal Court, the Paris climate agreement (from which the US withdrew and then rejoined), and various UN conventions.
American unilateral actions sometimes bypass international processes that Canada believes should be followed. Military interventions, sanctions regimes, and trade measures have proceeded without international authorization Canada might have preferred.
The use of American power to achieve objectives outside international frameworks creates tensions with Canadian preferences for rules-based approaches. Canada may support American objectives while questioning methods.
Implications for Canada
American selective commitment to international rules creates dilemmas for Canada. When the United States acts outside international frameworks, should Canada support the ally or the rules? These tensions recur across various issues.
Canadian advocacy for the rules-based order sometimes means advocating positions the United States doesn't share. Maintaining commitment to rules while preserving the American relationship requires diplomatic finesse.
Canada cannot maintain the rules-based order alone. When major powers, including the United States, act outside rules, the system weakens regardless of Canadian preferences. Canadian influence over American behaviour is limited.
Challenges to the Order
The rules-based order faces multiple challenges beyond American ambivalence. Russia's aggression in Ukraine directly attacks territorial integrity norms. China's rise presents a power that did not create the existing rules and may not accept them. Non-state actors, from terrorists to tech companies, operate outside traditional frameworks.
Whether the current order can adapt to these challenges or will be replaced by something else affects both Canada and the United States. Different views on how to respond to challenges may create bilateral friction.
Reform Imperatives
International institutions created in 1945 may not adequately address twenty-first-century challenges. UN Security Council composition reflects post-war power distributions. Trade rules may not address digital economy issues. Climate governance remains inadequate.
Both Canada and the United States have interests in effective international institutions. However, views on necessary reforms and willingness to make concessions to achieve them may differ. American veto power in the Security Council, for example, means reform proposals that would constrain American influence face American resistance.
Values and Interests
The rules-based order reflects values—human rights, democracy, peaceful dispute resolution—as well as interests. Canadian commitment to these values appears more consistent than American commitment, though both countries fall short of their stated principles in various ways.
Whether the order survives depends partly on whether it can be seen as legitimate by nations that didn't create it and may not share all the values it embeds. This legitimacy challenge affects both Canadian and American interests in sustaining international rules.
Conclusion
The rules-based international order represents both shared commitment and significant difference between Canada and the United States. Both countries benefit from and generally support the system of international institutions and norms created after World War II. However, Canadian commitment appears more consistent, reflecting middle-power interests in constraining great-power arbitrariness. American ambivalence, reflecting both domestic resistance to external constraints and confidence in unilateral capability, creates selective engagement with international rules. Managing this difference while cooperating on shared interests in international stability requires ongoing attention to where the bilateral relationship intersects with broader international order questions.