Rules-based International Order

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this vital debate and congratulate her on her speech. As other noble Lords have noted, the international rules-based system is under unprecedented stress. It faces not only the test of time and a world vastly different from the one it was designed for but the shortcomings of our collective response to global challenges, from climate change and mass migration to artificial intelligence and advanced weapons systems. Revisionist autocratic powers seek to disrupt and displace the system, while regional powers pursue nuclear and missile programmes and terrorism. Populist movements and illiberal democracies challenge global economic integration.

The founders of the international order could also not have envisaged the way in which the large tech companies operate as quasi-states, often prioritising profits over democracy. Unregulated algorithms amplify harmful content, fuelling disinformation and even ethnic violence, as tragically witnessed in the genocide against the Rohingya. With more active conflicts occurring now than at any time since the Second World War, global cohesion, stability and security have entered a dangerous phase.

As we approach the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this month, we should remember those who perished, reflect on our values and never stop learning from that tragedy: never allow its lessons to be algorithmed away, diminished or deliberately reinterpreted by those who seek to distort history. The international institutions, treaties, and laws we rely on today were born from the two world wars and the particular tragedy of the Holocaust. Britain played a proud and pivotal role in establishing these foundations. As prosecutor Ben Ferencz said after the Nuremberg trials:

“I learned that if we did not devote ourselves to developing effective world law, the same cruel mentality that made the Holocaust possible might one day destroy the entire human race”.


Today, these institutions need more than our respect or fond memories. They require us to recommit to their principles and work to strengthen and reform them. It is widely accepted that Russia and China pose primary challenges to the international order. Both seek to reshape it: Russia through force and subversion, China through subtler means. One crucial way to counter this is by defending—and adhering to—the international rules and norms that we helped to establish, remembering that international law is not discretionary: something to be ignored when it is inconvenient and adhered to only when convenient.

After Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, our collective response showed international co-operation to uphold international law at its most effective, with Ukrainian courage bolstered by decisive multilateral action. On the other hand, our darkest moments—the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the invasion of Iraq, the impunity for atrocities in Syria and, most recently, the mounting catastrophes in Sudan and Gaza—occurred when we disregarded our collective responsibility to uphold international norms.

While we all welcome the ceasefire in Gaza and hope that it holds, and deplore Hamas’s terrorist attacks, we must acknowledge that the Israeli Government, with the support of the United States, the United Kingdom and other friends and allies, has ignored numerous orders from both the ICJ and the International Criminal Court to comply with humanitarian law. In the words of Omer Bartov, the Israeli-American genocide scholar, these acts have destroyed

“the entire edifice of international law that was put into place after WWII”.

Whatever one might make of the merits of this assertion, the fact that it had to be made at all is tragic.

Britain too has fallen short on occasions. Between 2015 and 2023, we dropped from second to eighth place in the global humanitarian aid rankings, even as crises multiplied worldwide. While these cuts may have saved some money in the short term, they have cost us in international credibility and soft power. At the same time, our responses to human rights violations have shown some inconsistencies. In Ethiopia, we seem to have prioritised trade over justice. In the DRC, where M23 rebels rape and pillage with Rwandan support, we defer to President Kagame. In Sudan, we would rather not talk about external enablers. In Gaza, while rightly supporting Israel in its response and defence after 7 October, we have failed in our duty to be a candid friend and to defend and uphold international humanitarian law.

Theodore Roosevelt once observed that the most unpleasant truth is a safer companion than a pleasant falsehood. If we believe that we are safer in a world without rules or that we can pay no price for selectively applying them, we gravely misunderstand our own interests. Our international engagement is not about idealism; it is about self-interest. During moments such as the Falklands War or after the Novichok attacks on British soil, most of our allies stood with us because they believed in shared principles. We must therefore reaffirm our commitment to international institutions, investing in diplomacy and deterrence while leveraging soft power through mechanisms such as the BBC World Service. Most importantly, we must restore moral principles at the heart of our foreign policy, not just through stirring rhetoric but through consistent actions that reflect those values.

Human nature remains constant. It is prone, as ever, to error, greed and conflict. This reality demands a response from international institutions and sustained efforts to address poverty, injustice and conflict. The rules-based order is not merely a diplomatic construct; it is humanity’s best hope for lasting peace.