Aren't the ICJ, ICC and UNSC institutions of international law? And haven't they ruled over and over again that the settlements, occupations, blockades, and blocking of humanitarian aid to Palestine have been violations of international law?
The international courts are courts in name only. They don't have power because it is by design and thus any rulings are non-binding. The only real power there is is the UNSC, and it is extremely corrupt as everyone knows.
It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.
but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.
Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it's "real" in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the 'power' you are interested in is not the power of law.
Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions
Law is a product of the government beating the shit out of people who break its rules. Since there's no world government, international law doesn't really exist.
Don't know if it's gaslighting if you change it to say "Trump is partially your fault because you didn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils". Still points out a bit of how ridiculous it is.