>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.
Under U.S. law, a treaty is legally binding, no? But you're right that the rule of force prevails in international relations, and you could also say that the first principle of international law is that the U.S. can do whatever it wants. But, 1) publicists for the war have been piously appealing to international law and, 2) as a principle, it'd be nice if negotiation and truly multilateral bodies played a larger role in international relations, and B-52s a smaller one.
Doug