Also there are other countries not part of this talk nothings stops a company from setting up there and doing the same tax games. So i dont see how this idea does anything
In today's world economic pressure is a much bigger factor than war. If you upset enough countries, they can all start imposing trade and financial sanctions on you, which then ruins your economy. International law is a useful (even though of course not always perfect) guide in answering the question "is doing X going to upset a large number of countries?"
> Also there are other countries not part of this talk nothings stops a company from setting up there and doing the same tax games.
Most of these companies are actually headquartered in major economies – US, the EU, etc. What they've been doing is exploiting complex loophole interactions between the tax laws of those major economies and the tax laws of small countries with favourable tax regimes. If the major economies close those loopholes, they can stop most of this. The small countries only get away with it because the major economy tax law loopholes let them. Most of the time, companies don't want to move their actual headquarters to these small countries due to the negative consequences
If a country's domestic law violates international law, the extent to which that country gets away with it depends a lot on how powerful that country is. Great powers have much more ability to violate international law with impunity than small countries do.
And in this particular case, it is not that US law and international law are actually in conflict. It is just they assign different meanings to the same words. Even the US government generally accepts the internationally standard meanings in international fora.