There is something by that name, but it doesn't mean much. On the international level, it's all voluntary. States can choose to be part of the international courts. The US (and many other high profile countries) famously are not participating, which is why they can effectively just commit war crimes left and right.

In contrast, if you go rob a grocery store, you can't just opt out of punishment. "I'm not a member of this court system" does not work as a viable defense strategy, even if some souvreign citizen types sometimes try (and always fail).

International treaties are really just statements of intent and can be withdrawn at any point. Worst that happens is that next time you try to make a treaty, your counterpart may not trust that you uphold your side of the deal. There is no higher authority to effecticely appeal to, in contrast to the grocery store case.

Why stop at international law? It's no different than a lot of civil, financial, criminal law. You just get big enough and now there's nothing the system can do about you. It's become increasingly apparent that having the right friends and enough money is the only 'law' that matters at any level of society, and people will be too disengaged or selfish to do anything about it besides reap the rewards if they're in the right place. Laws only work on the disempowered, and in that sense international law is exactly as powerful as the law of the land in whatever country you live in.

>Why stop at international law? It's no different than a lot of civil, financial, criminal law. You just get big enough and now there's nothing the system can do about you.

It stops at international law because thats the only level without a governance system over it.

There is no governance system over the USA, UK, etc.

There is a governance system over Ohio, New Mexico, etc.

You are only right if you get big enough that you are a peer of the USA, UK, etc. AKA sovereign.

Some international law is "voluntary", some is not. You cannot for example commit a genocide by opting out of the law.

And yes, of course, it can sometimes be hard to enforce international law, just like it can be very hard to enforce national laws. It is illegal to murder people in most countries, yet people murder each other and some people get away with it.

Not in any real sense because states are sovereign.

There are things like the UN which some states, not all, agree to uphold the policies of. But they are also free not to agree to uphold the policies of the UN.

So ultimately it's a bunch of peers in an an anarchic system that do the best for themselves to persist. Cooperation, war, etc.

I think it was meant in a "international law is a farce" sort of rhetoric

Yes. More specifically I would say international law is law in name only. It's not really law at all. It's akin to a child asserting rules on a playground with their peers. There is no enforcement mechanism. In reality what we call international law is more like a mutually agreed upon policy, which can also just not be agreed upon at any moment. In fact many countries do not agree to them. There is no government agency or enforcement mechanism over states - that is what makes them states by definition.

I am always shocked by how controversial this take can be.

It’s complicated. While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements. Whether this is ultimately effective is not obvious, but I think “international law does not exist” is a simplistic take, with all due respect for your opinion (which I understand and partially share)

I doubt we are about to see those mechanisms being used to penalise the US for this latest behaviour though.

I don’t think other UN or NATO states are strong enough to play this game with the US yet.

And Germany wasn't punished for their behavior until much later.

>While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements.

Right. These are states organizing to assert their power in their interests. It's not mandated and enforced from some over-arching entity.

I would disagree, but I admit I am ignorant on the matter, so maybe you can explain to me how that's wrong.

My opinion, with all the caveats that come with an opinion, is that states do organise into over-arching organisations in the context of international laws, such as EU, UN, etc.

Such over-arching organisations do not have the same degree of power that a state has over its citizens, sure, but I think it still qualifies. You can theoretically also "disregard" state law, regional law, etc. The problem with that is that the power disparity is such that you can't hope to get away with it (in a perfect world and in a vacuum, that is, as many people do disregard national law and get away with it :D But thats beside the point, I think you'd agree?)