[dagenleg]

I don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous.

Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.

[matt-p]

And then you enable them to use the argument against you.

They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us to.

[dagenleg]

Who cares? It's just words. It's better than getting attacked while being paralyzed with indecision.

[lxgr]

Yes, the UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine etc.

Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.

[dagenleg]

I think if you wanted to bring up meaningful words, those were not the best examples to give. In the recent years, somewhere amongst the endless nuclear threat screeching and the ignored ICC arrest warrants, they have lost a lot of meaning. The declaration of war is a pretty good example of that, actually, being an outdated and withered concept.

I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much, willingness to do something, to respond, to defend yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.

[GoblinSlayer]

Why declaration of war is outdated?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why declaration of war is outdated?

Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war, we declare war by bombing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine

UNCLOS is being ignored by China. The Geneva Conventions have been ignored by every current, former and emerging superpower, as well as several regional powers--again, without consequence. Nobody declares war. And Putin has been amending his nuclear doctrine by the hour, often with false starts.

Would I prefer these were law? Absolutely. Must I blind myself to the fact that they aren't? No.

[lxgr]

There are ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while continuing to adhere to it, e.g. the US's FONOPs.

Just because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely.

[JumpCrisscross]

> ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while continuing to adhere to it

Sure. It's still, ultimately, a unilateraly rewriting of the terms. Something states can do in international law that individuals can't in a nation with the rule of law.

> because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely

Nobody is suggesting that. My point is we should be more open to such rewritings given they're commonly taking place. It doesn't make sense for Europe to treat UNCLOS as binding law when Russia, China and hell America treat is as nice-to-have guidelines.

International agreements were treated as law in the post-WWII era. That era ended some time after the fall of the Soviet Union. Slowly. Then suddenly.

They're now closer to LOIs. Some countries are realising this quickly. Others more slowly.

[lxgr]

Trust is hard to earn and very easy to lose. The appropriate answer to somebody violating hard-won international laws and norms isn't to just also start violating them.

[scotty79]

Laws are for participants who willingly obey them. If they don't they automatically shouldn't be covered by them. There might be separate subset of laws on how to treat them but they cannot be treated the same as conforming entities.

You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.

[lxgr]

Not sure what to call a rule that immediately stops applying to any involved party as soon as one violates it, but "law" isn't a word that comes to mind.

[Sabinus]

Our usual understanding of law has an enforcement mechanism of the nation on individuals, not voluntary agreements sovereign nations enforce on each other.

[scotty79]

It's called pragmatism. It's one level above the law for practical purposes. It dictates when to apply the law in the international setting.