treaties

The US is actively fighting to extend that and force it on other countries with their trade treaties.

The thing is, military forces are bound by international treaties to restrict violence against civilians.

Just because these treaties aren't 100% effective, doesn't mean they lack effect.

If technology progresses but international treaties don't change, then hundreds of years from now this will be exactly correct.

All the legal bases for that widely considering is based on treaties and fluffy documents rendered after the war.

Also, my guess is that it's an area ripe for effective international standareds, treaties and law.

These treaties are just an hostile takeover of the corporate world on our fake democracies.

My point is, unless you get all countries, including the biggest military superpowers to sign these treaties, they don't really work.

We have some treaties[1][2], but not enough, and it still needs to be thought through.

Many countries (such as Canada and Germany) have reciprocal income tax treaties with the United States that keep citizens from being double-taxed.

> Just because these treaties aren't 100% effective, doesn't mean they lack effect.

If there was ever a meaningful enforcement mechanism for these treaties, it no longer exists except in the case of the smallest, easiest targets.

I'd argue that it's not that easy to "ban" something by getting the UN to say so, or even getting conventional treaties signed.

There is a whole lot more illogic and inconsistency to be found between what is legal in something arbitrarily defined as "war" and otherwise, if one delves deep enough into the various treaties and conventions.

A is an example of "you can do what you want to *your own citizens when it doesn't affect the sovereign rights of other countries", so it's not applicable (IE if the US started taxing french citizens, you'd have a point) b and c are examples of mutually-agreed treaties/agreements.