At this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered what many commentators have called one of the most compelling speeches of the gathering, a diagnosis of the current state of the world and a blunt critique of how international law and the global order are being treated by powerful nations. Carney’s message was simple but urgent: the rules-based international system, long taken for granted, is eroding under the weight of unilateral power, selective compliance and coercive economic policies.
Carney explained that the original purpose of international law and global institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation was to establish a set of shared rules that all countries, large and small, would respect. In theory, these rules constrain aggression, settle disputes and ensure that no state, however powerful, can act with impunity. But in practice, Carney warned, the reality is very different. He noted that “great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”
That line struck a chord because it captures a harsh truth: powerful nations increasingly use their market size, control over financial systems and access to trade networks to bend other countries to their will, often with little accountability. Tariffs against allies, financial sanctions on those who resist political demands, and coercive economic policies are now standard tools of statecraft. Carney’s critique implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, is aimed at the United States under President Donald Trump, whose recent trade wars with Europe and threats of steep tariffs on Canada have rattled global markets and strained diplomatic ties.
Carney went further: “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.” In other words, the promise that international economic integration benefits all parties equally has become a misleading story. When interconnected systems are weaponised, they no longer serve mutual security or prosperity, they become mechanisms of dominance.
This critique resonates with ongoing concerns about how international law is applied selectively. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes related to Gaza, yet the lack of enforcement illustrates how powerful leaders can evade consequences that would apply to less influential figures. Under the current framework, enforcement of international legal judgements often depends on the political will of states, particularly those with the power to arrest or detain, rather than on universal justice. The result is a system where law exists, but is unevenly enforced.
Carney did not mention the United States or Trump by name, but the implications seem clear. In a global landscape where the US imposes tariffs as political tools and pursues controversial strategies, from economic coercion to overseas interventions, the global rules-based order increasingly appears optional for the powerful and mandatory for the weak. Indeed, Carney’s speech was interpreted by many as a rebuke of US hegemonic behaviour, as well as a broader call for nations to reassess how they engage with global institutions originally designed to protect fairness and predictability.
One of the most impactful parts of Carney’s address was his warning that middle powers, countries that are neither global hegemon nor minor players, must rethink how they protect their own interests. He stressed that if middle powers do not strengthen their collective position, they risk being controlled by the interests of stronger powers. In stark terms, he declared: “A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.”
This warning about isolationism and defensive walls is not abstract. It comes at a time when powerful nations appear increasingly willing to prioritise unilateral advantage over collective security. The collapse of predictable international law invites fragmentation, where alliances form based on transactional benefit rather than shared principles of justice and cooperation.
The reaction to Carney’s address underlines its significance. He received a rare standing ovation in Davos, unusual for a forum accustomed to cautious diplomacy. Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent criticised the speech, saying it was not smart to promote an “anti-American, anti-Trump message,” especially when “negotiating with an economy that is multiples larger than you are and your biggest trading partner.” This defensive response reveals exactly what Carney was warning against: powerful nations feeling threatened by criticism rather than engaging with it substantively.
A system where the strongest can choose which rules to follow, and face no repercussions for violating others, is not a rules-based order, it is an illusion. That illusion is unravelling, and the world now confronts a choice: hold on to an outdated notion of benign domination or create new alliances and norms that hold all countries accountable, regardless of power.
Oman al Yahyai
The writer is a multilingual writer and media professional based in Paris. She specialises in human rights and immigration
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
