WHY CANT WE OUTLAW LAW?

Could the United Nations pass an international law to ban wars altogether? Realists use history to argue that such a law would be ineffective unless it is enforced. A 1928 international agreement known as the Pact of Paris (or Briand-Kellogg Pact) was signed by 15 nations —including Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Japan, South Africa, and the United States. The agreement stated that war should be abolished forever as a means of resolving international conflicts. Yet it remained empty without proper enforcement. Right after the Pact of Paris was signed, the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty. However, the lawmakers made it clear that the United States would not be compelled to use force against countries that violate the treaty. In other words, Washington promised not to punish future aggressors, and so aggressive wars could continue. And they did. In the 1930s, the world community did not stop aggression by Japan against China, Italy against Ethiopia, or the Soviet Union against Finland (Oppenheim, 1992). The League of Nations could not stop hostilities between Paraguay and Bolivia. International law enforcement became under the critical eye of realists a serious problem of international law What's your view? And yet, let's assume that next year most countries of the United Nations, including the United States, agree to legally ban wars between states altogether. Based on what you have read, suggest several conditions under which this law would be effective. Which country or organization could be capable of creating and maintaining such conditions? On the Web. Office of the Historian of the US Department of State provides information about earlier legal attempts to outlaw war: