alt Hacker News> does that include not accepting
Their point wasn't about accepting it or not, it was about Iran not being bound by the terms of a treaty they've never ratified. And of course that applies to any state and any treaty.
War crime is something of a different case also because it's a term which exists separately in the popular lexicon and isn't used solely to mean "not in keeping with the terms of the UNSC."
Your comment also seems to be an example of whataboutery. It might be worth considering what prompted that.
Not at all. Freedom of navigation, the specific principle Iran violates, is one of the core parts of the post-WW2 "security architecture". Which is a difficult way of saying, it's the big reason we don't have WW3. And now you say, we'll just let Iran "opt out" and firing at other people's ships is just fine now ...
This means getting goods from other countries without paying tax to half the countries in between is no longer possible. It means no more business for any gulf country without paying Iran. It means no more business between EU and Asia without paying Spain and Morocco. It means ... Half the world's wars have been fought over that and the "way out" has been: as long as you use the seas, you get to do that, for free.
You see the problem, I hope?
Yes I get it, we all hate Trump, and this is "showing Trump" (not really, of all countries, the US is one of the least affected by this. This is especially horrible for Europe, especially specific European countries, most of Asia, most of South America and Russia)
Back to wars it is, I guess. This will rapidly deteriorate to the point where a great many countries are effectively unable to trade internationally.