[bryanlarsen]

> Either conquest is still okay, or it never was.

I believe the parent's argument was that land seizure by any country which has signed the UN charter after they've signed the charter is not legitimate.

It may not have been legitimate before, but signing the charter saying you agree it's not legitimate does put a nice line in the sand.

[logfromblammo]

I guess that's why no one has done anything about Russia's (re-)annexation of Crimea? Everyone who signed the charter is duty-bound to sternly frown, slowly shake heads, and make "tut tut" noises?

Sibling poster is correct. International law is basically that you can do whatever you want if you have the strength to back it up without backing down. Meaning that conquest is still de facto okay, even if you signed the charter to make it de jure not-okay. And as long as it's still okay, all those conquered peoples that lost their land can go pound... well, I don't know what they can pound, since the sand doesn't belong to them any more.