Eeeep! I just got your vote in before the bounty paid out!
Yes, I knew when I phrased the question that it was not nuanced at all! In reality, things can never really be a binary choice as there is just too many infinite combinations of factors that lead to any one situation... However, it was a good place to start kicking off the ball!
Yes, the differing interpretations, due to differing cultural or national unwritten rules or "values", have always applied. However, I would say that would be in the interpretation or the application of the penalty (at the judicial stage), and at that point I would be of the mind that flexibility and judicial discretion (assuming an ideal world of no corruption and a frictionless appeal system) would be best.
However, in the actual question of whether or not the law had not or had been broken, I would suggest that it would be concrete, after which the appeal or interpretation of mitigation (or the opposite) could take place?
Which is the dumbest tariff that you currently know of?
The 2009 Appropriations Bill in the USA: not only did it limit a lot of Mexican exports, it banned Mexican truckers to come into the USA. Of course this would lead to Mexico retailating back - to this day I have no clue if it got repealed or not.
Weird! I thought there was North American free trade zone? Although I know that free trade is not really ever free trade...