zlacker

Sure we do. We enforce it through the threat of warfare and subsequent prosecution, the same way we enforce the bans on chemical weapons and other war crimes.

We may lack the motivation and agreement to ban particular methods of warfare, but the means to enforce that ban exists, and drastically reduces their use.

>>fwip+(OP)
"We enforce it through the threat of warfare and subsequent prosecution, the same way we enforce the bans on chemical weapons and other war crimes."

Do we, though? Sometimes, against smaller misbehaving players. Note that it doesn't necessarily stop them (Iran, North Korea), even though it makes their international position somewhat complicated.

Against the big players (the US, Russia, China), "threat of warfare and prosecution" does not really work to enforce anything. Russia rains death on Ukrainian cities every night, or attempts to do so while being stopped by AA. Meanwhile, Russian oil and gas are still being traded, including in EU.

>>fwip+(OP)
We lack the motivation precisely because of information warfare that is already being used.