Foo-Byte wrote:Messina, you seem to be saying that a verbal contract is just as (if not more) binding than a written one. Am I interpreting this correctly?
No Foo-Byte, although I can see how it may seem that way. I am not a very eloquent writer. But let me try to clarify. A contract works well when there is a clearly defined law and a clearly defined process (based on jurisdiction given by the citizens that it applies to) for dealing with breaking of the contract (by means of force). I see international law as being far too political. Different nations are more different than two different people in the same nation as far as a law is concerned. And that law and the judges that rule on it must be subject to those two people in that country. I don't think that international law and court can act the same way between two nations. Again, the process and institution is far too political. For instance, many Arabs nations see the UN as being under the thumb of the US, lock, stock, and barrel. This is an example of the issues involved (though I may not agree that the UN is in fact under the US's thumb). While the UN sort of takes on a consensus type approach to most problems, issues of law cannot be effective if they are decided in this way. I think it is better to have ad hoc courts made, so that long term political motives are never realized.
So, I guess in short, I don't see a treaty between nations as being equivalent to a contract between citizens of a single nation.