You're wrong. It matters a great deal.
The fact is that they almost univerally (or perhaps completely universally) do remain, and that wouldn't be the case if there weren't consequences for leaving that countries aren't willing to accept.
You mean like the consequences the US faces for staying out of the world court & Kyoto? For many, staying has more to do with carrots than sticks. Some stay because they think it's a good place to gang up on the bigger guys (the US). How has that been working out for them?
Once you have that basic element, you effectively have the beginnings of a government.
I disagree with your premise. From your previous quote from Bolton, I don't see anything in there about enforcement. I see a requirement for members. I see monitoring of activities. I don't see any kind of stick for misbehaviour. Okay, so you flunk & the UN issues a resolution against you, then what?
Governments have a tendency to get more powerful over time, especially when few people are paying serious attention.
But you're dealing with someone here who is not accepting the premise that it is a government. Short of the US pulling out, what would you like to see in the American rep to the body? Do you want someone who is going to show up there every day to tell everyone that the organization is useless or that is should be made useless?
Don't underestimate those consequences. Every time we get behind some international court for prosecution of alleged "crimes against humanity" (as with Yugoslavia and Rwanda), we end up giving more prestige to the ICC, and thereby more credibility to those in this country who urge us to join.
For many, staying has more to do with carrots than sticks. Some stay because they think it's a good place to gang up on the bigger guys (the US).
No, they stay because if they leave they'll miss out on assistance from the World Bank and IMF, as well as other assorted UN agencies. Not that these things do all that much for the populations of these countries, but they're often nice sweet deals for the people who run the governments. It absolutely doesn't matter what methods you use to keep countries in line, as long as they're effective.
From your previous quote from Bolton, I don't see anything in there about enforcement. I see a requirement for members. I see monitoring of activities. I don't see any kind of stick for misbehaviour.
He also noted the high level of compliance. These countries aren't just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Short of the US pulling out, what would you like to see in the American rep to the body? Do you want someone who is going to show up there every day to tell everyone that the organization is useless or that is should be made useless?
He doesn't have to tell anyone anything if he doesn't want; all he needs to do is veto everything and gum up the works as much as possible.