give examples of the unenforcable and unenforced Western Laws, categorized

Governments & official records

An Irish parliamentary briefing on removing Ireland's "triple lock" says it would let Ireland join operations run by regional organisations and coalitions without UN Security Council approval. The briefing says such operations would be "contrary to the UN Charter and international law". (The triple lock requires Cabinet, parliamentary and UN approval for overseas deployments.)

Research institutes

The Atlantic Council describes Iraq's Federal Supreme Court cancelling a 2012 waterway treaty with Kuwait. The court ruled that the treaty's ratification breached Iraq's constitution, so Iraq is not bound by it under international law.

News & reporting

Daily Maverick reports that the Southern Africa Litigation Centre has gone to court. It says South Africa broke its own National Conventional Arms Control Act by authorising R279m in arms exports to the US despite alleged violations of humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention. Al Jazeera reports that the 2026 BRICS declaration opposed sanctions imposed without Security Council authorisation but did not condemn the US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

Justice Council Political Analysis

These laws go unenforced for three reasons, from most to least important: 1. **The veto:** enforcement runs through a UN Security Council where the main suspects hold vetoes. 2. **Consent-based courts:** the major powers have not ratified the courts' founding treaties. 3. **Declaratory status:** many texts are declarations or advisory opinions that do not bind. At home, export-control and treaty laws are also suspended when politics require it.

The levers are: - veto restraint in mass-atrocity cases, as in the France–Mexico initiative; - General Assembly action under the Uniting for Peace procedure; - ratification of the Rome Statute and the Arms Trade Treaty by the US and its allies; - domestic courts enforcing export-control laws, as the litigation centre's case seeks.

Conclusion

The sources point to four groups of laws: - **Rules on the use of force** (the UN Charter's ban and the Security Council approval requirement), which the veto and coalition operations get around. - **International court rulings and arrest warrants** (ICJ judgments, ICC warrants), which depend on state consent and Security Council follow-up. - **Declaratory instruments** (General Assembly resolutions, ICJ advisory opinions), which do not bind. - **Domestic laws meant to carry out international duties** (arms-export controls, treaty ratification rules), which governments set aside. All four fail for the same structural reason: no enforcer stands above the most powerful states.