>The concept explains that intricate legal developments are used as a substitute to a military occupation...Critics have argued that such initiatives actively u

>The concept explains that intricate legal developments are used as a substitute to a military occupation...Critics have argued that such initiatives actively undermine the sovereignty of governments The very idea of the UN and treaties by nature undermine the sovereignty of governments, and that is obviously not an inherently evil thing. Yes there will always be criticisms when balancing the creation of an international legal framework that supports a stable international community at the cost of relinquishing sovereignty. However, I assure anyone that as deplorable as one might find US "lawfare" (if you buy into this argument) against Snowden or Kim Dotcom, that the US political actions are far better than military operations such as Russia into Georgia, and I am left wondering why SputnikNews seems to be suggesting that use of armed force (military) is a more legitimate way of expanding international influence than through international organization and bi-lateral treaties...why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means, are we that far removed from WW2 we simply forget the consequences of might is right?