Institution for a little over an hour. While, why dont we start. The microphone is on, and welcome to all of you. I am a professor at yale law school, and the director of our chinacentric. And i am delighted that we are doing this event, which is part of a formal collaboration that our center has with the john thorton chinacentric here. It has been a very valuable collaboration, and this is the first inperson person event that we have had related to the covert restrictions and it is wonderful to be here, to see you, and see our colleagues and friends. The topic, as you know, is United States, china and europes different visions of the International Order. And we have a group here that is ideally suited for that, a multisyllabic title. First moderating the event is ryan hoss, who has recently and splendidly been named the director of the john thorton chinacentric here. He china center here. He is a major figure in the china relations. Sitting next to him is susan thorton, a senior fellow at the chinacentric china center, and an important call lake for meat and all of us. As you may know, she joined us after serving for over 25 years in the state department and retiring with the title acting assistant secretary for east asia and the pacific. And [indiscernible] not representing china, but reflecting china is professor jow dow chung, it stinks professor at the peking university of International Relations, directing their Global Center on the south. And perhaps not for the rest the world the world, but for me, another important fact is that he is currently a visiting scholar at our china center. He has been a resident since finally, not representing europe but reflecting the perspective of europe, we have a visiting fellow here but prior to that and prior to that frequent sometime was the paris director of the european center. We have a terrific group. With that i am going to turn it over to ryan and look forward to hearing what everyone has to say. Quick thank you for your leadership of the yale bookings partnership. Weve been very enriched by the collaboration and we feel very rewarding to have you as a partner in todays event. This is intended to look at convergence and divergence of use. We are going to forgo the presentations that jump right at the heart of these questions. We are going to start with susan. What is the International System. People invoke it often but rarely define exactly what it is we are talking about. I have what, three minutes . I am glad you used the Term International system because that is the one i feel most comfortable with trying to describe, the International System that we are talking about is the system established after world war ii. Designed to in large part trying to prevent another cataclysmic conflict between the major powers for breaking out. And also to detect smaller powers from predatory actions by larger powers and it is a set of institutions and agreed rules to try to promote stability, prevent conflict. We have as part of the International System laws that actually predate this. But with the founding of the u. S. After world war ii, layers of institutions that are designed to try to preserve peace and try to promote stability. Of course, the International System after world war ii, part of the idea was to promote reconstruction, the financing for reconstruction of wartorn economies and to promote commerce and development. So we set up a number of institutions. The imf, the world bank. There are a lot of questions about how well the principle of territory Charity Means that borders of internationally recognized sovereign states should not be through use of force. That is a principle that was well observed for most of the last 75 years. And they have done a good job in preventing interstate conflict but was violated very obviously by the invasion of ukraine and russia being a permanent member of the un Security Council. I think that has really given rise to probably the panel we are having here today which has shaken a lot of peoples faith in the system. The u. S. Has played an outsized role in the International System. We have provided the leadership. They have provided a lot of the stability of the system through multiple Alliance Relationships and a lot of military deployment. We also i think promoted global prosperity on the back of open trade flows, open markets and commerce. Financial flows, capital flows. I think we have played a leadership role. One of the things we will talk about is whether that will continue or whether that should change. My basic bottom line is the International System has brought us a lot a lot of good. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will get to the criticisms in a moment but first i want to give them a chance to offer any additional amendments to the definition of what the International System is that we are talking about. If it is international, it is by nature evolutionary, by nature, it invites it has to accept contributions and contests of different views to be self sustainable. 1. I would want to say is that the Hearing International assistant was it would benchmark that with the u. S. Based system that has served kennys interests extremely well and most of the principles, the core of the u. N. Treaties are quaint in line with the chinese statement on coexistence. Those five principles originated in india. Myanmar back in the 50s but nonetheless, the chinese reported that. But there is a bit of a new one in the understanding if you go back to historical studies, you are in line peaceful coexistence are not translated properly. I dont know of many of you here speak chinese. This would be more in line with reference to coexistence meaning fine, the war would be an option. Lets prepare for that. If youre looking for that Nuclear Arms Race but the the chinese warning for peaceful coexistence we have differences but nevertheless, we have to cohabit, except the reality that we are cohabiting one universe. I would think that nuance is often lost and to the extent it is partly because of the cold war and partly because of the power of rhetoric, sometimes the nuance is lost in translation. If you read some of the literature, especially the media, there seems to be uncompromising differences between chinese and american preferences for the International System today. I dont think that is reflective of the realities. You have what is said and what is not said. I would more invite more attention to looking at or examining chinas use by asking what they are benchmarking against which historical present or what kind of idea is taking some expression at the superficial level. Especially by excepting a translated work into english. We have the same challenge of translated translating english or other foreign linkages into chinese. If i bring myself to some sort of program, i do not believe it will be the kind of uncompromising rivalry. Between china and the United States or for that matter china and the rest of the world. It is interesting that youre, suggest china benefits and sees value in the International System as a figure that runs counter to some of the prevailing views in washington. China therefore is hostile towards it. I would say that the net the definition that susan talks about, the legal resolution of conflict is something europeans care very much about. The foundation of the European Union is a peace project. Sworn enemies are supposed to overcome their differences. Sometimes their hatred of one another. Through trade and cooperation. I think we have to Work Together in an international setting. Europeans like to call it the multilateral order. I think that is most of what this is. I think that with china we have a bit more of a difference. They came up with almost a holy trinity of what the opinion should be which holds other partners a certain way. There is an internal element to put it plainly, how the Economic System should work. There is an external component to it. It pertains to how we think of the International Order. I think about verification again. What i would say that europeans and americans have tried to push is they are trying to build trust, ensuring that the more that we now, the more protected we will be. That is something a number of people in china put back on. We are seeing this actually play out in a number of issues. One of the big issues is armscontrol. We see how we are struggling to sometimes share the same vision. We want to partner with china. A systemic rivalry doesnt mean they should be no corporation, we think of a number of topics when it comes to the global commons. Not only is there space but a necessity to cooperate. I was just going to Say Something unelected, definition. I think you bring up the tension in the International System between the printable of sovereignty, noninterference in the countrys internal affairs. That is a principle of the u. N. Charter. The International Community has a responsibility to protect people anywhere in the International Community from what is considered to be state power. We see the tension playing at. I would even say it has really come to a head in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union because these issues kept coming up. The responsibility to protect from the human in a case where there was civil strife and an attack on Minority Groups. It comes up in the realm of human rights. That is at issue between the u. S. And china and europe and the International System. This is an area that is constantly working on china and many other countries. This is the heart of the tension. When this notion of systemic rivalry came out of new rhetoric, most of the initial translations in chinese i thought were wrong. I thought we should read a piece to corrected it. It becomes a systematic rivalry. What is the system . If there was a reservation about the systemic difference, it was probably understood or feared to be a code word for regime change. It is about the governor system of china. We spent some good time to seek clarification with our european colleagues. It does seem to be getting clearer consistently. That speaks of need for further communication but armscontrol is for itself. What determines the result of warfare after it gets started is not weapons. It is human will. Words take place. They come and go. The chairman got that right. It is the human choice. Armscontrol needs to be discussed but it is a means to a larger end. This is how we learn to relate to each other and we use armscontrol as an instrument to reduce tension rather than revising some numerical parody. There are going to be differences. Question was talking about the right to protect. Human rights, many of them are better at it. You have some difference between International Relations and International Relations. Human rights, if you put more as International Relations, you have each state, each Government Entity doesnt have that beauty to protest human rights and enhance human right protection. But that it is very internationally related. But there was a chinese reservation. I think it was china alone but it was that concerns about human rights, how they could be better and more productively expressed. How they could see improvement to the group of individuals, especially minorities, women or ethnic minorities, marginalized and then how that can be more effective. Is that where you trade sanctions as a mean to say section delete and then hopefully they would turn around to change their behavior toward the poor and marginalized . Or you think about other means of doing this. I am not thought this through and especially beginning with libya, i do believe there is a lot of room in military intervention for the goal. It would be really effective or conducive to reaching a goal of improving human rights underground. I think that is a fair point that it is worthy of further discussion. Im not sure if we will find the answer today but it is an important topic. Every year around this time, there is a wave of articles and commentary suggesting the International System is not solving the worlds problems. I think that feeling is exacerbated by ukraine as well as in israel. I want to ask each of you whether or not you agree with that diagnosis. That the International System is not addressing the most pressing problems in the world. If so, what would you identify as the most pressing problems that merit further focus and resources . I think it is so uptodate in this is that we have not found something do we need to reform it . Do they need to make themselves much more hurt much more strongly in the sense that dell atavism is one country and one voice . One format i thinking of is the one Security Council that they inherited from a time when the power balance was very different that it is now. Europeans are among those same should be extended. We are thinking about a number of countries, germany was one every country is important. There should be more long to members of the one Security Council. It is not that have an they can happen in the u. N. But when you think of the International Order, they are really only two main elements. The first one is impartiality. As of now, the United Nations is the only institution providing these two elements. I think one of the things europeans are pushing a lot more is the ability to make the you and more representative. It is not just the power dynamite but the rights of everyone. Were looking at an increasing number of conflicts, with all the event of the work in ukraine. We are also looking at a number of Development Issues that are not going away. It is the question of climate adaptation, of course, Development Issues. We have to find a way to not choose between all these topics to make sure we address all of them and make sure we address all of them collectively. We are seeing a number of many natural format. The g7 have been extremely active in providing some more. We are seeing the brick. We are seeing a number of formats emerging. I think this is a trend of multilateralism. These many natural formats, they are a larger international organization. It is not unilateralism against multilateralism. We need to do all of this together in a larger framework. This is what the europeans are pushing for as much as possible. They are growing voice in the International System. Correctly you want today is in many ways a victim of its own success. People often forget how tremendous the human system if you look at the meteorology, if you look at health and food and the plan of action, that is among developing countries. U. N. Specialized agencies have done a tremendous job of connecting different parts of the word. Especially todays popular vocabulary for the global south to be generating more dynamic mess in their own society at the very beginning of the u. N. Or the early origins of the south corporation movement. The human is fit for purpose. Whose purpose if you think about it, the purpose of the vast majority of the world is quiet fit. If you measure that purpose by looking at secure development and human rights for that, each of the three categories, there can be some disagreement. There is a lot of blame on the u. S. System, especially Security Council resolutions. In terms of article five an authorization the printable of collective security and then at the end of the day, you think, why do two parties go to war . Who are the responsibilities there in the first place . Is it the response ability of the two direct parties . Is it the responsibly of a third party, some that grew up under the u. N. System . I would think there is more to look at the human system going beyond the human mechanism per se. There is an organization that the emphasis is on this. Members have tremendous differences. Regardless of all these large differences what is the deliverable . The deliverable is nobody. They are talking about war is a choice and further on, you can look at the centrality, japan or even japan, china, south korea, 10 plus three, there are a lot of things to look at and many other regional efforts. I profoundly disagree. It is how different members actually make use of it. They outsourced the blame to say they are moving the u. S. Forward. I said i think the one the u. N. Has done a lot in his history looked a puppy uphold peace, stability and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater but there are some areas where we need to do some work. We have not enough capital flowing to the developing world from the developed world. We have huge transactional problems. Pandemics, the cooperation of the pandemic was abysmal. They should be taken as a point of departure for future lessons and maybe even coming up with improvement to work on this. Climate change is an existential threat to all of us. If we dont do something about that, there is no point in talking about the rest of it. I think certainly the failure to prevent outbreaks of conflict, we have seen that over the years. If you look at the other side, interstate, conflict has been you can count examples on one hand. I think the collapse of empires, decolonization, all of these things, the u. S. Has done an amazing job. New technologies will be another existential threat we are not set up at all to g