|
Dilbert1234567, you say that "the only laws that apply to all the world are the UN's laws, the French do not need to heed an agreement between Canada and the US."
This is not quite right, and also misses the point. First, there are many global treaties to ban certain things, or promote something else. These are often, but not always, initiated by the UN. There are also many treaties pre-dating the UN (Geneva convention, Hague convention, etc). These are also international law. Then there are the countless UN resolutions, which also become international law (as I've stated over and over).
Combine all this stuff, and you have "international law", where even experts in the field admit that the total package is vague. It's kinda like British case law, where every single ruling becomes part of the law system - this means there's tons of different, possibly conflicting "laws" out there.
Again I ask you: if international law is so transparent and clear, how come both the pro-war and anti-war sides can be right when pointing at 1441? Or are you suggesting the US did not check their side of the story first?
|