[lukan]

There is international law. It is made up of all the treaties the big and small powers implemented together. But yes, not much is left now, but I would argue before Bush and 9/11 .. it was in a way better shape.

Global military is not necessary, just consensus to enforce it.

Practical example, there is no EU military, but there surely are EU laws EU members have to follow.

[stackskipton]

>Practical example, there is no EU military, but there surely are EU laws EU members have to follow.

EU has other levers to enforce compliance like ejection from Eurozone or Schengen Area.

Global military is required to enforce it because biggest stick wins. Many countries thinks Russia should be removed from Ukraine but no one has stepped up to provide the military to do so, ergo, in violation of international law they remain.

[lukan]

"Many countries thinks Russia should be removed from Ukraine but no one has stepped up to provide the military to do so, ergo, in violation of international law they remain."

I would argue, or rather I know many people from poorer countries argue, that why should they care that russia violates international law etc. if the US blatantly ignored it when they invaded Iraq? In other words, it is the same international like it is in the EU, just with less trust. Also the EU might fail (and there are challenges) if too many members act against the common interest. Then the enforcement will fail and so will all of EU.

(also, with international support and china not backing russia ... it would have worked without military involvement. Then the sanctioned would have worked. So ... some countries are just happy for the cheap bargain for russian oil)

[lysace]

Trade is a vector, obviously.