International Law is enforced by the stronger party when the cost of enforcing it outweighs the cost of not enforcing it. The existence of a law raises that cost of not enforcing or not following it. That does not mean that the law will always be, or never be, enforced. It just tips the scales slightly. You asked what would happen when a stronger party was the violator. Ken responded that probably nothing would happen. I agree. I also agree that Chertoff is on the right track. We’re the stronger party, seeking to change the laws to suit our interests. That does not mean that we will always adhere to those laws, nor does it mean that we will always enforce them upon others. But it does tip the scales in our direction, changing the laws to better suit our strengths and to be less accommodating to our adversaries’ strengths, raising the costs for our adversaries to leverage their strengths and lowering the costs for us to leverage our own.