>
> 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
Also witness the hypocrisy in the U.S. government appealing to international law and the Geneva convention in the treatment of the three soldiers captured by the Serbs while simultaneously acting in obvious contradiction of the said laws and conventions. How can the soldiers be treated as POW's when the U.S. hasn't officially declared war against Serbia?
> , 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.
Yes, but why obey international law when all you have to do is pick up the batphone when third world dictators (usually put into power and supported by the U.S.) start getting a little uppity?
Sam Pawlett