>builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. I don't agree with "might makes right"

>builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. I don't agree with "might makes right", if that's what you're trying to argue. >What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale? International law? E.g. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is sometimes said to be "illegal". I suppose one could argue that conquest only become illegal with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact. So one could argue that attempts to relitigate pre-1928 conquests essentially amount to applying international law retroactively, which might violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Of course, just because conquest was "legal" doesn't make it acceptable morally. However, I do think one could use the international law point to argue that Russia needs to pay reparations to Ukraine, but pursuing reparations for pre-1928 conquest isn't valid.