I'm sorry but I have a couple of pet peeve triggers that keep going off.

[TomSlick]

13. The conflict thing may be a result of international law.

To avoid the question whether there is a "war" for purposes of the application of the Geneva Conventions, etc., international law does not talk about the "laws of war." Instead, the reference is to the "laws of international armed conflict" and "laws of non-international armed conflict."

The change is in the 1977 Protocol I (international armed conflict) and Protocol II (non-international armed conflict) to the Geneva Convention. The US signed Protocols I and II but never ratified them. The consensus of US international law experts is that by signing the Protocols, the US agreed to move toward ratification and, therefore, agreed to be bound by them. Israel, Turkey, and India have not signed the Protocols.

A good argument is made that since the Protocols have been adopted almost all countries, it is binding on all countries, whether or not signed or ratified.