Explain why international law enforcement can be limited.

• A. Global uniform authority; unlimited enforcement power; political considerations minimal.
• B. State sovereignty; lack of enforcement mechanisms' power; political considerations.
• C. No sovereignty concerns; robust enforcement agencies with universal jurisdiction.
• D. Universal compliance; no political considerations.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that there isn’t a global police with the power to compel obedience. States retain sovereignty and decide what obligations they will meet, so international law relies on voluntary compliance and consent rather than a central, coercive authority. Enforcement mechanisms—sanctions, diplomacy, or collective security actions—depend on states’ willingness to act and on coalitions that can be formed, which means outcomes are uneven and sometimes delayed.

Political considerations greatly shape what gets done. Powerful states may resist or reinterpret obligations, and even international bodies that can authorize action, like the UN Security Council, are constrained by vetoes and competing interests. Practical limits also arise from differences in legal systems, the need for extradition or mutual legal assistance, and the resources required to pursue cases. All of this together explains why international law enforcement is limited in practice.