English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent years, some countries have advocated a “rules-based international order.” However, they have not explicitly defined the “rules” here as “international law” and thereupon elaborated on their view of the rules for the international order. In fact, a series of legal practices implemented by these countries indicate that what they pursue is largely a view of rules that prioritizes domestic law over international law and regional international law over universal international law, and that politicizes international law. This view of rules undermines the role of international law in the international order and violates the requirements of the times for improving global governance and promoting the establishment of a more just and reasonable international order. To correct the view of rules pursued by these countries through the advocacy of a “rules-based international order,” China proposes an “international law-based international order.” The view of rules embodied in the “international law-based international order” recognizes that international law based and centered on the UN Charter is the authoritative system of rules governing international relations, while not excluding the role in the international order of other rules that do not violate international law.

On the “International Law-Based International Order”