European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic are visiting Canberra this week as the European Union and Australia move closer to signing a free trade agreement, reflecting a broader push by both sides to expand global trade ties. The agreement would be the EU’s third trade deal this year, following pacts with Mercosur and India, while Australia has also recently concluded an agreement with the UAE and is seeking stronger economic links with India. However, while both parties are actively pursuing new trade treaties, concerns are growing that their commitment to defending the international rules-based order that underpins such agreements has not been equally strong.
Critics argue that although the EU and Australia frequently present themselves as supporters of international law and multilateral norms, their actions often fail to match their rhetoric. This concern intensified after Ursula von der Leyen faced criticism for suggesting that Europe could no longer act as a custodian of the old-world order and should instead adopt a more interest-driven foreign policy. Although she later reaffirmed support for international law, the episode added to wider concerns that both the EU and Australia are drifting toward more selective and inconsistent approaches to global governance.
The article argues that policies such as abusive migration measures, foreign policy double standards, and weak enforcement of international legal principles have contributed to undermining the very rules-based order both actors claim to defend. At a time of heightened global uncertainty, exacerbated in part by the foreign policy disruptions associated with US President Donald Trump, the piece calls for the EU and Australia to take a clearer stand against what it describes as a “low rights” economic model promoted by China and to ensure that trade relationships do not reward repression or environmental harm.
It urges Australia to use trade policy more deliberately to advance human rights and environmental protections, while calling on the EU to better uphold its treaty obligations by integrating stronger labour and rights standards into negotiations. In particular, it points to current and future trade talks with countries such as Thailand and Gulf states as opportunities for the EU to prioritize reforms rather than repeat what critics describe as rights-related compromises seen in past deals with India and Vietnam.
The article also raises concern about domestic policy choices that may weaken both sides’ credibility. It criticizes efforts by von der Leyen to roll back regulations aimed at curbing corporate abuses, arguing that these moves reverse years of EU progress. At the same time, it calls on Australia to adopt human rights due diligence legislation to ensure businesses are held accountable for abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains.
In foreign policy, the piece argues that both the EU and Australia should apply international law more consistently, including by banning trade with Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law and ending what it describes as a one-sided response to human rights abuses and violations of the laws of war in the Middle East. It also calls on both governments to invest more strongly in the United Nations human rights system and to ensure their trade and foreign policies are guided by those principles.
Overall, the article concludes that the credibility of the EU and Australia’s claimed shared commitment to the rules-based international order will be judged not by their public statements, but by whether their trade, corporate, and foreign policy decisions consistently uphold human rights, environmental standards, and international law at a moment when the global system faces mounting strain.
