US violations of I-Law model to everyone – I-Law violations ruin I-Law compliance

So what? Why does it matter that the United States violates treaties, and occasionally does so without a shred of legal cover? Perhaps that is the realpolitik privilege of the global hegemon: to be able to sustain hypocrisy, Uncle Sam the Deadbeat has repeatedly failed to pay its aliquot share of the costs. Some impoverished states sometimes cannot pay their just debts; the United States can pay, but sometimes just decides not to. 69 vol.37:1 winter 2013 asserting that its unique international responsibilities and its “exceptional” position in the world enable the United States explicitly to welch on its debts, fudge on its obligations, and adopt a “do as we say, not as we do” approach with other countries. However, there is a cost when the world’s strongest state behaves this way. One potential danger is that other countries may mimic this disregard for legal commitments and justify their own cavalier attitudes toward international law by citing U.S. precedents. Reciprocity and mutuality are fundamental tenets of international practice; it is foolhardy to suppose that other parties will indefinitely continue with treaty compliance if they feel that the United States is taking advantage of them by unilateral avoidance of shared legal obligations. So far, there has not been significant erosion of the treaties discussed in the three examples. !e United States and Russia will fall years short of compliance with the CWC destruction obligations, but other parties, with the notable exception of Iran, have reacted with aplomb, comfortable with the two giants’ unequivocal commitment to eventual compliance. Likewise, the VCCR is not unraveling, even if other states lament the asymmetry in consular access to detained foreigners. And while many states pay their UN dues late and build up substantial arrearages, that recalcitrance seems to stem more from penury than from a deliberate choice to follow the U.S. lead. But that persistent flouting undermines the treaties—and by extension, it jeopardizes the entire fabric of international law. Chronic noncompliance—especially ostentatious, unexcused, unjustified noncompliance—also sullies the nation’s reputation and degrades U.S. diplomats’ ability to drive other states to better conform with their obligations under the full array of treaties and other international law commitments from trade to human rights to the Law of the Sea. !e United States depends upon the international legal structure more than anyone else: Americans have the biggest interest in promoting a stable, robust, reliable system for international exchange. It is shortsighted and self-defeating to publicly and unblushingly undercut the system that offers the United States so many benefits. It is especially damaging when, following an indisputable violation, the United States acknowledges its default, participates in an international dispute resolution procedure, and INDISPUTABLE VIOLATIONS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE UNITED STATES UNAMBIGUOUSLY BREACHES A TREATY? It is shortsighted and self-defeating to publicly and unblushingly undercut the system that offers the United States so many benefits. the fletcher forum of world affairs vol.37:1 winter 2013 70 apologizes—but then continues to violate the treaty. !e CWC implementation bodies, the International Court of Justice, and even the UN General Assembly and Security Council are unable to effectively do much to sanction or penalize the mighty United States, but it is still terrible for U.S. interests to disregard those mechanisms.