I don't see anyone saying that what Iran did is wrong, do you? It seems that prevention is expected.
The secret of international law is that it doesn't really exist. Or that the "law' in "international law" does not mean the same meaning as the "domestic law" within a country's borders. All you have are agreements between countries but with no true external body that can enforce penalties or punishments without the threat of war. So what happens is that the most powerful win arguments.
You are correct in that this (and many other related articles) are not directly saying what Iran did is wrong... however, I feel the general tone and overall implication is that Iran have "taken" a drone that doesn't belong to them, and clearly are not about to give it back.
So as you say, "law" doesn't really apply, it's more of a moral decision as to whether a country should spy on another country. We can clearly see the outcome of that decision here.
My point is that Iran is being made out to be the "bad guy" because they've taken something important and supposedly secret that belongs to the USA and won't give it back.
I don't think a country is the bad guy when they are simply trying to stop another country from spying on them.
Iran is being made out to be the "bad guy" for stuff totally unrelated to this drone; I haven't seen anyone labeling the drone's capture itself as wrong. (Then again, this might be because I don't watch any TV news - maybe they're crazier.)
America certainly isn't the good guy in the middle east. If there is a measure that puts America ahead I'd like to hear it. This is not, however, a defense of Iran. Can everyone involved be the bad guy?
Alright, I don't give a fuck one way or the other. You tell me what makes them the default bad guys and what makes US the default good guy or neutral guy?
I don't think the US is perfect by any stretch of the word. I just have a hard time imagining a third party deciding that Iran is the example they'd rather move towards if given the choice.
> the "law' in "international law" does not mean the same meaning as the "domestic law" within a country's borders.
That's true. And also, the "law" in "domestic law" doesn't apply equally as people assume it does. Really, it's a huge fairy tale that "everyone is equivalent in the face of the [domestic] law", which for some reason many grown ups believe.
It's really a sad choice of words that the word "law" is used for both physical phenomena, where it i absolutely applied, and legal situations, where it applies mostly when it isn't inconvenient to the rulers (which is a word that better described what's usually called "leaders")
The secret of international law is that it doesn't really exist. Or that the "law' in "international law" does not mean the same meaning as the "domestic law" within a country's borders. All you have are agreements between countries but with no true external body that can enforce penalties or punishments without the threat of war. So what happens is that the most powerful win arguments.