When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney described the 'rules-based international order' as 'fiction' at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, it marked one of the bluntest critiques yet from a Western leader of a concept long treated as the moral backbone of post-war global governance.
Carney's remarks went beyond rhetorical frustration. They questioned whether the system that emerged after World War II ever truly applied rules equally-or whether it merely reflected power, dressed up as principle.
What Is The Rules-Based International Order?
The 'rules-based international order' refers to a network of institutions, laws, agreements and norms built after World War II to prevent a return to great-power conflict. Its foundations include the UN Charter, the Bretton Woods institutions, NATO, global trade rules and international law governing sovereignty, borders and human rights.
Western governments-particularly the US and its allies-have argued for decades that this order produced unprecedented stability, prosperity and cooperation.
In recent years, US officials framed conflicts involving Russia and China as existential threats to that order, arguing that defending it justified sanctions, military aid and economic containment.
Also Read: Jefferies Sees Upside In These Sectors With India-EU FTA 'Around The Corner'
Rules For Some, Exemptions For Others
Carney's intervention cut to the core contradiction of that narrative. He argued that while the rules-based order claimed neutrality, it was always selectively enforced.
"We knew the story was partially false," Carney said, arguing that the strongest powers routinely exempted themselves when convenient. Trade rules, he said, were enforced asymmetrically, and international law applied "with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim".
Crucially, Carney acknowledged something Western leaders have often avoided stating outright: that US hegemony helped deliver public goods-open sea lanes, financial stability, collective security-but at the cost of credibility. Western allies, he said, tolerated the gap between rhetoric and reality because the system broadly worked.
"That bargain no longer works," Carney said. "We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition."
From Integration To Coercion
Carney's remarks come amid a broader reassessment of globalisation. Over the past two decades, crises spanning finance, health, energy and geopolitics have exposed the vulnerabilities of extreme economic integration.
More recently, Carney argued, major powers have begun weaponising that integration. Tariffs are used as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as pressure points. Economic interdependence-once sold as mutually beneficial-has become a tool of subordination.
Although Carney did not name Donald Trump, the reference was clear. Trump's revival of tariffs, threats against allies and transactional foreign policy have brought those tensions into sharp relief.
Also Read: India 'Geared Down and Stopped' Russian Oil Imports, Says US Treasury Secretary Bessent
Canada's Exposure and Europe's Anxiety
Canada has been directly exposed to this shift. Ottawa has faced repeated tariff threats, trade pressure and inflammatory rhetoric, including Trump's past suggestion that Canada could become a US state. Similar pressure has been applied to allies such as France through trade and defence disputes.
Trump's renewed focus on Greenland has further unsettled Europe. His push for greater US control over the territory has alarmed NATO allies, reinforcing fears that sovereignty and alliance norms are increasingly subordinate to power politics.
For Carney, these developments expose the fragility of a system that relied on restraint from the most powerful actor-a restraint that can no longer be assumed.
Was The Order Ever What It Claimed To Be?
Carney's critique aligns with a growing body of academic and policy research questioning whether the rules-based order was ever as universal as advertised. While Western leaders argue it was consciously designed to prevent chaos, historians note that it evolved unevenly, often reflecting US strategic priorities rather than neutral rules.
Sovereignty, for example, was selectively defended. Countries such as Ukraine were said to have an absolute right to choose alliances, while Russia and China were told they had no sovereign right to define their internal political systems. Promoting democracy abroad-even through coercion-was treated as compatible with the "order", even when it violated traditional norms of non-interference.
A Rupture, Not A Replacement Yet
Carney did not outline a clear alternative. His warning was diagnostic rather than prescriptive. But the implication is stark: a system sustained by shared belief cannot survive once its inconsistencies are openly acknowledged.
As economic integration becomes a tool of pressure rather than cooperation, and as power increasingly overrides principle, the language of a neutral, rules-based order may no longer describe reality. What replaces it remains unclear-but Carney's remarks suggest the West can no longer pretend the old bargain still holds.
Watch LIVE TV, Get Stock Market Updates, Top Business, IPO and Latest News on NDTV Profit.
