Soldati senza confini wrote:Madredia wrote:
What if your country has not signed the international treaty?
International Treaties are not the same as Conventions of War
Conventions of War are like the Nuremberg Code and the Geneva Conventions, no country can violate those and get away with them.
International Treaties on the other hand are like NATO, in which only a group of countries are involved, and their laws are not universal, but only applying to the signatories of the treaty.
Actually you would be surprised by how Many Legitimate States do not accord themselves within Intenrational Treaties if they were not a signing Party.
Such As the Chinese Usage of Chemical Weapons such as mustard gas-lewisite mixture in combat against Japanese forces through out the second world war despite their being massive scrunity and several accords signed to negate their usage by both the AXIS and Allies.
This was decades before the Chemical Weapon Convention but given it took nearly a decade for China to even acknowledge that Ratification and little to nothing was done to them in either trade or economic sancitions.
There is a viable premise in history for National Law overriding International Law when it comes to the Military.
So ultimately i would propose that in most situations even when an order violates international statutes National law would supercede at least within the Region. But if NATO later declares said individual or the government that issued such order an HTV or Rogue State there could be grounds for challenge there.
If you like i can point out a few more cases in the 20th and even 21st century where National Law has superceded internaitonal accord and for the most part nothing was done about it. Or if it was it equated to an angry letter.
