How are treaties enforced?
In: 3
They aren’t. Not in the sense that people usually mean when they use the word “enforce” to refer to treaties and international agreements at least. The nation is the highest level of sovereignty, and few nations are willing to give up sovereignty to a higher international governing body to enforce a treaty. No one is going to come in and “arrest” a nation for breaking the rules.
That being said, many nations view upholding treaties as important from a “soft-power” perspective. A treaty is only as good as the word of nation that signs it. Why would anyone cooperate with a nation that frequently breaks treaties? They probably won’t. And that could make it difficult for that nation to engage in beneficial agreements. This has increasingly become more important in the modern, globalized world, where international cooperation is essential for a nation’s success.
Also, many treaties are made after war, where the losing side is forced to agree to terms to the victor. In this case, it is implied that the loser MUST follow the treaty under the threat of further violence from the victor in the war. However, if the loser no longer believes the threat of violence from the victor, the treaty might end up getting broken (see German military build-up in the 1930s in violation of the Treaty of Versailles for details).
Strongly-worded letters (i.e. they aren’t), legal action in international courts (which are often ignored), economic sanctions (which often don’t work unless the non-violator and any allies it has have a massive soft power advantage), or the threat and application of military force, either directly or indirectly.
It depends on the treaty, how seriously it’s taken by the relevant parties, and the balance of power between them, along with whether or not the treaty violator is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If they are, they are guaranteed to veto any UN action against themselves and are likely to ignore the courts as well.
The US has a particular distaste for the International Criminal Court due to its refusal to allow any form of trial by jury, for instance. This would make accepting its jurisdiction a direct violation of the US Constitution, which guarantees this right unless it is voluntarily waived by the defendant. Without legal jurisdiction, any attempt by the ICC to arrest an alleged American war criminal under any circumstance would be considered kidnapping and an act of war in and of itself, and legislation has been passed to reflect this. Nuclear-armed countries can get away with a hell of a lot more than non-nuclear ones for obvious reasons.
Latest Answers