To me the 'enforcement body' is the body that does the actual enforcement.

By your definition a city council is an enforcement body because they control the police. I think that is confusing and inaccurate.

<snip>



Or Somalia. Or Darfur in the Sudan. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or Kashmir. Or - need I go on?

<snip>



A lot do, yes.

But read on...



Oh sure. In fact, let's take the cluster bomb thing you mentioned above. You know WHY cluster bombs are on the ban? For one, they're frequently considered mines (they aren't, they're unexploded ordnance, but never mind that for a moment) the big reason is that cluster bombs are hugely effective and are highly technological. Small little dirtbag countries cannot deploy them most of the time. So they get everyone up in arms about unexploded ordnance (a problem in every war since the American Civil War and still an issue in parts of Europe from the two World Wars) and how cluster bombs are evil and that they should be banned. Everyone agrees that this is terrible and all those countries whose militaries either A) Don't want to be hit by weapons they cannot field or B) Don't use their militaries because they're too liberal jump on the bandwagon. The US tells everyone to piss off because cluster bombs work very well and they know full well what's really going on.

Also - the whole Landmine thing. Does anyone ACTUALLY think that a treaty would have prevented the Khmer Rouge from filling big chunks of Southeast Asia with mines? I think not. We're talking about people who think piles of skulls are a good cultural statement. Is it going to prevent terrorists or insurgents from using IEDs (which are effectively landmines)? Umm, hasn't yet. How about the tinpot dictatorships? No, Saddam used them extensively in his defensive belts in the desert. So who then, is this legislation actually aimed at? The US. Why? Because, among other things, North Korea would really like to see the DMZ not filled with modern US maintained mines - it would make it easier for them to cause trouble.

The main reason the US didn't sign that treaty was because of the DMZ by the way. Other than that they were more or less fine with it save as it impacted cluster bombs and airfield denial mines - but of course the US is almost the only country which actually uses those technologies.

Or let's go back a bit further to the UN treaty on the Clark Orbit. The Clark (after late SF writer Arthur C. Clark) orbit is also commonly known as the geosynchronous orbit - the best orbit to put something up and have it stay over the spot it was put. This is highly useful for things like telecommunications satellites.

Now at the time the treaty was written there was huge pressure for the treaty to be 'fair' and every nation to have a section of the Clark orbit allocated to it. So that's what was done. Never mind that the vast majority of those countries didn't have space programs and couldn't USE their spots, they wanted them anyway. The real reason why was that a lot of South American dictators didn't want the US to put up spy satellites or telecommunications satellites that they didn't and couldn't control over their countries. So by demanding their 'fair share' they were just playing denial tactics.

There are other examples, plenty of them, but I think that should do.