Search the archive.

Among the debates that have swept the U.S. foreign policy community since the beginning of the Trump administration, alarm about the fate of the liberal international rules-based order has emerged as one of the few fixed points. From the international relations scholar G. John Ikenberry's claim that "for seven decades the world has been dominated by a western liberal order" to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's call in the final days of the Obama administration to "act urgently to defend the liberal international order," this banner waves atop most discussions of the United States' role in the world. About this order, the reigning consensus makes three core claims. First, that the liberal order has been the principal cause of the so-called long peace among great powers for the past seven decades. Second, that constructing this order has been the main driver of U.S. engagement in the world over that period. And third, that U.S. President Donald Trump is the primary threat to the liberal order-and thus to world peace. The political scientist Joseph Nye, for example, has written, "The demonstrable success of the order in helping secure and stabilize the world over the past seven decades has led to a strong consensus that defending, deepening, and extending this system has been and continues to be the central task of U.S. foreign policy." Nye has gone so far as to assert: "I am not worried by the rise of China. I am more worried by the rise of Trump." Although all these propositions contain some truth, each is more wrong than right. The "long peace" was the not the result of a liberal order but the byproduct of the dangerous balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States during the four and a half decades of the Cold War and then of a brief period of U.S. dominance. U.S. engagement in the world has been driven not by the desire to advance liberalism abroad or to build an international order but by the need to do what was necessary to preserve liberal democracy at home. And although Trump is undermining key elements of the current order, he is far from the biggest threat to global stability. These misconceptions about the liberal order's causes and consequences lead its advocates to call for the United States to strengthen the order by clinging to pillars from the past and rolling back authoritarianism around the globe. Yet rather than seek to return to an imagined past in which the United States molded the world in its image, Washington should limit its efforts to ensuring sufficient order abroad to allow it to concentrate on reconstructing a viable liberal democracy at home. CONCEPTUAL JELL-O The ambiguity of each of the terms in the phrase "liberal international rules-based order" creates a slipperiness that allows the concept to be applied to almost any situation. When, in 2017, members of the World Economic Forum in Davos crowned Chinese President Xi Jinping the leader of the liberal economic order-even though he heads the most protectionist, mercantilist, and predatory major economy in the world-they revealed that, at least in this context, the word "liberal" has come unhinged.

Cameron F. Kerry, “Small yards, big tents: How to build cooperation on critical international standards,” Brookings Institute, 03-11-2024, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/small-yards-big-tents-how-to-build-cooperation-on-critical-international-standards/

Our take-aways from stakeholders are corroborated in a study by Matt Sheehan of China’s role in SDOs, “What Washington Gets Wrong About China and Technical Standards.”88 In addition to similar interviews, this study included an analysis of filings with NIST in response to a request for comments on China’s activities on standards development and their influence on standards for emerging technologies. It found that “most industry commenters do not believe China is manipulating or breaking the rules of international SDOs.” Similarly, a review of telecommunications standards development by the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee reported “no empirical evidence that China or other governments have comprehensively co-opted the standards process to their own advantage.“ The inclusion of China as a participant in the U.K. AI Summit Safety and a signatory to the Bletchley Declaration and the initiation of U.S.-China government-to-government discussions on AI coming out of the Biden-Xi summit in November 2023 provides some signal that the Biden administration and allies do not see China’s role in AI as entirely adversarial.89

Cameron F. Kerry, “Small yards, big tents: How to build cooperation on critical international standards,” Brookings Institute, 03-11-2024, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/small-yards-big-tents-how-to-build-cooperation-on-critical-international-standards/

The U.S., the EU, and other democratic and liberal economies should recognize China’s efforts to steer international standards for its own aims, but they should not exaggerate China’s role or overreact to it in response. For a long time, it was a talking point among the U.S. and other Western countries to urge China that it refrain from imposing its own national standards and instead engage with international SDOs. Now that China has made a significant turn in this direction, they should not ring fire alarms at Chinese involvement in SDOs.

Cameron F. Kerry, “Small yards, big tents: How to build cooperation on critical international standards,” Brookings Institute, 03-11-2024, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/small-yards-big-tents-how-to-build-cooperation-on-critical-international-standards/

DON’T OVERREACT TO CHINA.

Adam Mossoff, Urška Petrovčič, Thomas J. Duesterberg, and Harold Furchtgott-Roth, “Comment on National Institute of Standards and Technology Study on China's Involvement in Standard Development Organizations,” The Hudson Institute, 12-07-2021, https://www.hudson.org/technology/comment-on-national-institute-of-standards-and-technology-study-on-china-s-involvement-in-standard-development-organizations

Although China has clearly strengthened its role in the global standardization ecosystem, it is not the technological leader, despite claims to the contrary. This is best illustrated with 5G, where Huawei is often proclaimed to be the global winner of the 5G race. 4 It is undeniable that Huawei is one of the leading contributors to 5G technological innovation. But the “world leader” status bestowed on it is a byproduct of an overly simplistic and unreliable methodology.

Jacob Feldgoise and Matt Sheehan, “How U.S. Businesses View China’s Growing Influence in Tech Standards,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 12-23-2021, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2021/12/how-us-businesses-view-chinas-growing-influence-in-tech-standards?lang=en

Reports of Chinese misbehavior at international standards organizations do not appear to be widespread. Only three of the fifteen commenters asserted that Chinese participants at international SDOs are unfairly influencing procedures to advance their own goals. And of the three, only one organization illustrated a specific incident of undue influence.

Adam Mossoff, Urška Petrovčič, Thomas J. Duesterberg, and Harold Furchtgott-Roth, “Comment on National Institute of Standards and Technology Study on China's Involvement in Standard Development Organizations,” The Hudson Institute, 12-07-2021, https://www.hudson.org/technology/comment-on-national-institute-of-standards-and-technology-study-on-china-s-involvement-in-standard-development-organizations

To promote both U.S. leadership in the development of next-generation technologies and continued participation by U.S. companies in SDOs in the efficient commercial deployment of these technologies, it is imperative that the U.S. secure reliable and effective patent protections for technological innovations. Until recently, the U.S. was recognized globally as having the “gold standard” patent system.9 David Kappos, former Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, once observed that the U.S. patent system was “the greatest innovation engine the world has ever known.” 10 The U.S. patent system spurred the innovations that produced the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, the computer and biotech revolutions of the twentieth century, and the mobile revolution of the early twenty-first century.11 Unfortunately, it is in doubt that the U.S. patent system can properly foster next-generation inventions in artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things, 5G, and other innovations that will be the subject of technological standards set by SDOs.

Cameron F. Kerry, “Small yards, big tents: How to build cooperation on critical international standards,” Brookings Institute, 03-11-2024, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/small-yards-big-tents-how-to-build-cooperation-on-critical-international-standards/

The system that develops these international standards involves a wide variety of standards bodies and their stakeholders. Leading international SDOs involved in AI standards development (described in Table 1 below) are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); the International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations body; and the IEEE Standards Association (a unit of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers ) (IEEE). In 2018, the ISO and IEC joint technical committee on information technology established a subcommittee (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42) to promulgate standards on artificial intelligence with a view toward accelerating responsible adoption across applications and sectors.13 JTC 1/SC 42 has organized working groups and joint working groups with other ISO/IEC subcommittees; issued at least 17 technical specifications and reports relating to AI, including concepts and terminology, bias, risk management, trustworthiness, and assessment;14 and it convened an open biannual workshop series to engage stakeholders across industry, academia, government, and civil society.15 The ITU has “pre-standardization focus groups” on AI for several sectoral applications of AI16 and an annual AI for Good Global Summit.17 The IEEE was an early actor on AI ethics and has engaged actively in AI standardization;18 it has developed a series of standards and resources addressing what it refers to as autonomous and intelligent systems.19 Among current standards, as Hans Micklitz puts it, “ISO/IEC and IEEE on trustworthy AI already firmly occupy in the field.

Jacob Feldgoise and Matt Sheehan, “How U.S. Businesses View China’s Growing Influence in Tech Standards,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 12-23-2021,

The outsized role of government in China’s domestic economy and the government’s prioritization of standards both mean that China’s influence will continue to grow in international SDOs. More than half of the industry commenters believe that China’s domestic political system further incentivizes Chinese participation—beyond what market economics would achieve on their own. This is evidenced by programs at the local, provincial, and national levels that provide financial subsidies to Chinese companies for submitting standards applications to international SDOs.

Derek Chipman, “Authors Alliance Signs Onto Letter Opposing the Pro Codes Act,” Authors Alliance, 05-11-2022, https://www.authorsalliance.org/2022/05/11/authors-alliance-signs-onto-letter-opposing-the-pro-codes-act/

While the sponsors of the bill promote it as a step forward for transparency and access, it could be problematic for both. As David Halperin, Counsel of PublicResurce.Org, explains, this act could allow SDOs as well as other private parties that publish text “later incorporated into a law could use copyright law to block people from reciting or distributing the text . . . so long as they offer that text on a website somewhere.” While it may seem that the bill improves access by requiring the SDOs to post their codes online, it could actually limit access by giving a copyright interest to the SDOs and allowing them control over access. EFF astutely characterizes the proposed bill as a “Wolf in Sheep’s clothing” that could allow SDOs to assert a monopoly over their standards and codes via paywalls and restrictive licensing, likening this outcome to allowing them to “put up tollbooths in front of huge swaths of U.S. Law.” EFF also points out that the mandate that the SDOs make the codes publicly accessible is unnecessary, as the non-profit PublicResource.Org is already making these codes and standards available without burdensome restrictions. PublicResource.Org is a non-profit that promotes access to government records and documents by making them freely available online, and was a co-signer in the letter opposing the Act. As noted earlier, the NFPA and other SDOs claim they have a copyright in their standards even if incorporated into public law. With this theory in mind, certain SDOs launched a lawsuit against PublicResource.Org under a Copyright infringement claim, but a recent district court decision ruled the majority of its sharing was fair use.

Derek Chipman, “Authors Alliance Signs Onto Letter Opposing the Pro Codes Act,” Authors Alliance, 05-11-2022, https://www.authorsalliance.org/2022/05/11/authors-alliance-signs-onto-letter-opposing-the-pro-codes-act/

Laws and legislation belong in the public domain, and strong access allows codes and standards that affect everyday life to be dispersed more rapidly and widely. By removing barriers to access, these standards could be more easily understood and studied by the public and even improved upon through the free exchange of knowledge. Requiring only that the text of codes incorporated by reference into public are made available on a website does not promote transparency if what is given in exchange is a monopoly power that curtails the copying and dissemination of that information.

Adam Clark Estes, “How copyright lawsuits could kill OpenAI,” Vox, 01-18-2024, https://www.vox.com/technology/2024/1/18/24041598/openai-new-york-times-copyright-lawsuit-napster-google-sony

“If you have to go to copyright owners for permission for technological innovation, you’re going to get a lot less innovation,” McSherry told Vox.

Raymond Mosley and Robert Tapella, “Amicus brief- Former Government Publishing Officials Raymond Mosley and Robert Tapella,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/ar/document/amicus-brief-former-government-publishing-officials-raymond-mosley-and-robert-tapella

Online Federal Register access naturally helped researchers, libraries, and citizens read the law; it also saved the government substantial paper printing costs.⁵⁸ But the benefits went further. Public access to online regulations created new opportunities, both public and private, to develop new technologies that would even further advance public understanding of and participation in the regulatory process.

Raymond Mosley and Robert Tapella, “Amicus brief- Former Government Publishing Officials Raymond Mosley and Robert Tapella,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/ar/document/amicus-brief-former-government-publishing-officials-raymond-mosley-and-robert-tapella

Second, the historical debates over the Federal Register rebut the purported need for copyright protection over mandatory technical standards. The Appel- lant standards organizations contend that copyright-based monopoly control offers necessary private profit incentives. Yet the same incentives-based arguments have been proffered as reasons against publishing the Federal Register online or in print. The copyright arguments in this case are no more plausible than the failed historical arguments against making the Federal Register accessible.

Patricia A. Griffin and Maury Saunders, “ANSI Publishes Action Brief on IBR Landscape for SDOs,” American National Standards Institute, 05-09-2024, https://www.ansi.org/standards-news/all-news/2024/05/5-9-24-ansi-publishes-action-brief-on-ibr-landscape-for-sdos

Global Trends in IBR

Pamela Samuelson, “Questioning Copyright in Standards,” University of California, Berkeley, https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/BC%20questioning%20standards.pdf

Sixth, copyrighting standards may create perverse incentives causing SSOs to invest in persuading governments to mandate use of their standards.163 Veeck illustrates this temptation. Under the deal SBCCI offered, local governments such as Anna and Savoy got royalty-free rights to use the Code and one or more copies to make available in a public office. 164 But SBCC charged anyone else who wanted a copy of the code or access to it a substantial fee, and got referrals from building inspectors and other public officials, making public employees into a kind of free sales force for SBCCI. 165 The perverse incentives problem is of particular concern because of the increasing frequency with which governments are actively encouraging government adoption of privately drafted industry standards. 166

Roger Pielke Jr., “The Politicization of Science Diplomacy,” American Enterprise Institute, 02-29-2024, https://www.aei.org/articles/the-politicization-of-science-diplomacy/

The idea of independent experts overseeing research and providing important advice to policy makers sounds great. But actually creating institutional mechanisms for advice, monitoring, and supervision in global public health will not be easy or straightforward.

Roger Pielke Jr., “The Politicization of Science Diplomacy,” American Enterprise Institute, 02-29-2024, https://www.aei.org/articles/the-politicization-of-science-diplomacy/

Rarely do we discuss the pathological politicization of science diplomacy.1 All of the perils found where science meets politics are present where science meets diplomacy — after all, diplomacy is just a special kind of politics.

Stewart Brand, “Rethinking extinction,” Aeon, 04-21-2015,

The trends are favourable. Conservation efforts often appear in the media like a series of defeats and retreats, but as soon as you look up from the crisis-of-the-month, you realise that, in aggregate, conservation is winning. The ecologist Stuart Pimm at Duke University in North Carolina claims that conservationists have already reduced the rate of extinction by 75 per cent. Getting the world’s extinction rate back down to normal is a reasonable goal for this century. Restoring full natural bioabundance in most of the world will take longer, however. It would mean bringing wildlife populations back up to the marvellous level of ecological richness that existed before human impact. That could be a two-century goal.

Michael Shellenberger, “Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong,” Forbes, 11-25-2019, 

Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.”