As far as I understand there are certain laws that compose a body of law called International Law. These laws arise from treaties and political bodies.
To provide an answer on this network aside from other controversial questions of politics and law when people make statements like the following,
And of course, there is no such thing as a "banned weapon". There are treaties that state signatory states aren't supposed to use certain weapons, but those are only valid if the country is a signatory and has ratified that treaty. – jwenting
Has Israel ratified any treaties which ban the use of DIME, AP bombs or WP? If not, then there's no "international law" for them to follow. BOTTOM LINE: the term "international law" is highly misleading. [...] - RonJohn
Well, you keep using the phrase international law, like it's a thing. If it's not the UN, then it is de-facto some random group of countries, and if Israel isn't a party to that group, it doesn't apply. If the UN (or some UN org) has actually made a law which is supposed to apply to all member nations outlawing DIME, AP and WP, then maybe Israel is beholden to follow it. My suspicion is there are no such "international laws". – CGCampbell
Is specifically the part in bold correct or not? It is my understanding that those that ratify these treaties do not merely accept them on behalf of themselves, but accept the responsibility to impose the law against others regardless of acceptance.
Would someone that has not ratified the Geneva Convention be immune to charges that the convention describes?