Anonymous

“Interesting anecdotal note:  most people think of the so-called "international law" as contracts.  But international treaties are just pacts because no mechanism of enforcement exists or (short of war) can exist -- nations are sovereign.  Whereas, national laws are contracts -- they can be enforced by domestic administrative authorities.
”

I can't agree with this "interesting anectodal note". Claiming that international law which is actually based on international treaties is unenforceable, because these treaties are in fact agreements rather than contracts is incorrect. Nations, or more precisely "states" are sovereign which means that they are indipendent from any internal or external power's influence in their acting. But this does not mean that they can do whatever they want - even violate the treaties they concluded! The Charter of UN prescribes as one of the basic principles of inertational law the principle of  "pacta sunt cervanda" (treaties should be kept) which means that the states are not obliged to conclude a treaty, but when doing so, they are legally obliged to fulfill the obligations prescribed in it. The same principle is vested in the Vienna Convention on International Treaties and it is part of so called "hard-core law" which always has to be followed.

Concerning the enforcement of international treaties, yes, this is a more complicated matter than in a single state's jurisdiction. But every treaty usually prescribes an authority which watches over the keeping of this treaty and it has and sanctions for breach of the contract are also usually prescribed in the treaty itself. Furthermore, treaties concluded on the platform of the United Nations are "backed" by the power of UN, which means that in case of breach of the contract, UN can impose collective actions against the breaching state.

So what kind of unenforceability do you mean?