"This is basic stuff of the Rule of Law. A country could choose not to follow any Rule of Law- "

GB, The 'RULE OF LAW' for countries is a lot different than the 'RULE OF LAW' for individuals. The UN could next friday endorse the murder of every American on sight, but that doesn't make it "THE RULE OF LAW", at least not in the sense you wish to use it.

"In a world with a superpower that does abide by the Rule of Law "

Okay, GB, again, you use this undefined ephemeral premise. What do you mean by RULE OF LAW. If you are thinking of placing this on the foundation of the American/British civil legal tradition, then Not even Britain and US follow the RULE OF LAW. If you are aiming for some sort of hobbsian- okay, thats fine. Nazi Germany was a Lawful state under that notion.

"but if country signs a cease fire and one of *demanded* conditions is the get rid of WMD"
and
"then in order to end the war that country *must* fulfill it's obligations. "

Okay, so your RULE OF LAW is that contracts negotiated between nations are absolute and binding.

Hmmm. France negotiated a treaty with Nazi Germany, but that does not make it the RULE OF LAW that should have prevented the French Resistence. No, before you start a pissing contest, I ain't saying we are Nazi germany or like Nazi germany, its just that your RULE OF LAW notion, if it is entirely contractual, doesn't look like any law I wan't ruling the world.

"In a world with a superpower that does abide by the Rule of Law it would be *wise* if weaker countries pay attention [lots of attention] to this concept."

Honestly, GB, it sounds like you are arguing for a Socratic Right of the Powerful for international poilitics. That the most powerful somehow set the law, and the weaker must abide by it.

"Now whether we choose to go to war may depend on various factors- a simple cost anlaysis *could* indicate it wasn't worth the effort to enforce an agreement. For example, say instead you had a cease fire agreement which was solely that country would pay 10 billion dolllars. Now, since resuming a war could cost far more than 10 billion dollars, you could say it wasn't worth going to war *over* 10 billion dollars. Or you could decide that there was more at stake than merely the 10 billion dollars, so even if you spent 100 billion to get the 10 billion paid, then it was *worth it*. "

As for this, these seems to contradict your earlier statements about respecting the RULE OF LAW (again, whatever that is), and instead predicating moral justification of issues of cost-effectiveness and convinience. Which, I assure you, if you follw too far you will find complete contradiction.

I simply won't bother arguing with you if were going to run around in circular diatribes predicated upon YOUR unarticulated and unsubstantiated abstract about what the RULE OF LAW is and what the RULE OF LAW entails morally.

Provide a clear definition for RULE OF LAW, a process for it, or don't bother.

Best,

Davin L.