International "Law" I would consider differently. Their is no universally agreed governing body, nor should their be. That is the very definition of sovereignty , no higher authority.
The UN is a forum for debate, nothing more. International Law is still "law of the jungle" and should be.
If you want "laws" to govern your national government, then merge with another nation and make a new national government.
True, but there are Accords, Acts, Treaties and so on in place that have been in place for hundreds of years. Both domestically and Internationally.
And my point is, when they are thrown out on the table when some is crying about the civil liberties of 'Detainee's', then they shouldn't be disregarded because it now suits the ideology.
I'm not saying that there isn't grey areas. But there no grey areas for the same people when they use International Law to their advantage.
I'm addressing inconstancy here.
