> It makes sense when you think
> about it -- valid treaties are consented to, and there is no consent under
> duress. But this sort of threat seems to be regarded these days as the
> soul of international uprightness. Does anyone know if there wiggle room
> in this convention the Nation didn't mention?
Is the Vienna Convention and the U.N. charter legally binding at all? It may just be a gentlemen's agreement. Of course, law means nothing unless there is a body to enforce it. In this case, the U.S. is no doubt the strongest military power in the world and as such is free to act as it pleases without fear of retribution. The rule of force not the rule of law is usually the rule in international relations.
The Pawlettbureau