Comment by Dansvidania
6 days ago
It’s complicated. While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements. Whether this is ultimately effective is not obvious, but I think “international law does not exist” is a simplistic take, with all due respect for your opinion (which I understand and partially share)
I doubt we are about to see those mechanisms being used to penalise the US for this latest behaviour though.
I don’t think other UN or NATO states are strong enough to play this game with the US yet.
>While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements.
Right. These are states organizing to assert their power in their interests. It's not mandated and enforced from some over-arching entity.
I would disagree, but I admit I am ignorant on the matter, so maybe you can explain to me how that's wrong.
My opinion, with all the caveats that come with an opinion, is that states do organise into over-arching organisations in the context of international laws, such as EU, UN, etc.
Such over-arching organisations do not have the same degree of power that a state has over its citizens, sure, but I think it still qualifies. You can theoretically also "disregard" state law, regional law, etc. The problem with that is that the power disparity is such that you can't hope to get away with it (in a perfect world and in a vacuum, that is, as many people do disregard national law and get away with it :D But thats beside the point, I think you'd agree?)