Palestine. On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".

You will have to define "supporting regular laws." If you mean adhering them, then it is foolish, if there are no working means of enforcement. If you mean, "working towards creating a system of regular laws," then it is not foolish, but acting as if this system is working before it becomes a reality is foolish.

And had these enforcing agencies been effective, Israel would not have a choice in the matter. The mere fact that Israel can decide on whether or not to go to an international magistrate makes that system ineffective.

The lack of legal obstruction is irrelevant. I did not claim that the international court was legally unable to enforce international law, but that it is not effective in actually doing so.

Until such time that the big boys (the US, for one) decide to actually establish an effective, international law-enforcement body, any nation taking its case to the existing, non-effective body, is at a disadvantage since on the one hand, in order to take this case to said international court, it will have to adher to all of its decisions, including some that may not be to its favour, but on the other hand, the criminal nation or nations will see no reason to adher to any decisions of that court, that are unfavourable to it or them.

Let's say you stole someone's bread, and that he later murdered your wife. In a world where law is universally enforced, there is a lot of merit to your taking the case to the police, so that they may capture that murderer and bring him to justice, even though you will probably be punished for stealing his bread. On the other hand, if the law is not universally enforced, but, in fact, is elective, you will have no reason to go to the courts, since your murderer is not likely to willingly put himself into prison, while you are likely to be punished for stealing the bread in the first place. Instead, you will find other means to punish your wife's killer.

I explicitly referred to the law's enforcement, ignoring the merits or lack there of of any specific law. Yes, I would rather run free and fend for myself against marauders, than be forced to do the same, only while carrying around an extra ball and chain, to be picturesque.

As for the second paragraph, you are the one ignoring the social context of laws and justice, by deciding to blindly abide by a specific set of laws, independently of how they are treated by the rest of the population.