"International Law" is one of the illusions of our age.

There is, in fact, no such thing as "international law" in the sense far too many people use it; the type of prat who thinks the UN is some sort of global legislature or embryonic government. Or that its pronouncements are anything but statements of opinion from the sort of organization that puts Syria and the Sudan on its Human Rights Committee.

Law, in the sense of binding, enforceable edicts, is the product of sovereign power. It applies within the boundaries of sovereign states, who enforce it through their courts and police, and ultimately by the military in the event of insurrection.

States make treaties with each other, and abide by them as long as they please. When they think it's in their interests to disregard treaties (or customary methods), they do so. Eg., we simply renounced our nonproliferation treaty with the USSR some time ago.

Nothing constrains them except the threat of retaliation by other sovereign states.

It's rather like the relations between Mafia families, who also make treaties with each other and have customary methods of solving disputes. When those don't suit, they "go to the matresses".

International affairs is not ruled by law, since there is no world government and nothing beyond or above the authority of the State. It's an anarchy _sensu strictu_, ruled by force and its threat.

The above is a descrptive statement: it's the way things are.

Prescriptive statement: that's exactly the way it should be.

The sovereign nation-state is the sole possible locus of democratic self-government.

Witness recent events in Europe, where the people mounted a roar of protest at having authority leached away from the places where they can hold it to account. "The People" exist only in the context of "the nation".