BOUND TO ACT IN DARFUR?
Nato claims in an e-mail that

International law that the US accepts as binding (insofar as it ever does) requires intervention in the case of genocide, so Congress is comitting
itself to supporting intervention.

Good, I guess. But what does that mean? Does it mean boots on the ground, or does it mean talk? To me, law implies a government, government implies a monopoly of force, force still runs fast and loose all over the world, so "international law" is either a complete chimera or mostly a chimera, for better or worse. But the topic confuses me.