[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.