Fuchs' post re: Grundgesetz ("fundamental or basic law" per my Langenscheidt's), etc., presents the German side of I Law and Con Law issues, where the two systems (German and US) have very different answers to the same questions.

Basically we have:

1. Pecking order of Basic Organic Law, International Law and Legislative Acts in the nation's system of governance.

2. Incorporation and Abrogation of International Law in that system.

3. Determination and Interpretation of International Law in that system.

Those are the general points that should be understood by each side before engaging on specific issues. And engage we will, because the answers are going to be different - although, in most cases, the results will be the same or at least similar.

I took this as German joke,

Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".
although it does represent the post-WWII German position to view its WWI and WWII history in terms of the laws of war that were developed after WWII. If that evaluatioin is incorrect, please feel free to correct.

For the time being, I'd just as soon leave this sequence on the shelf for the moment:

Hague A > WWI > Paris Pact & Hague B > WWII > War Crimes Trials > UN Charter > GCs > Gulf I > Gulf II (legal and factual basis).

Unless each step in this process is understood, intelligent discourse about the OP is not possible.

Just some thoughts on ground rules - a Grundgesetz, so to speak.

-----------------
And, as I look to posts made while I write this - comments such as this are not helpful:

Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.
My purpose here is not to make international friendships (although if that happens, fine); but to witness to respective concepts of war; and, to the extent possible, destroy misconceptions of each other's positions.

So, let's keep this on an officers' level of discourse (recognizing that SNCOs by their inherent nature and talents will outdiscourse any officer).

I also had questions similar to RJK (a builder of bridges turned horse wrangler) about your comment that:

The alliance [JMM: NATO] has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years
1. How (facts) has NATO degraded Europe's security situation since 1999 ?

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

Left out "glass houses" because you can say that of us; and we of you - yah da, yah da .....