We are taught in schools to "Pledge our Allegiance" to these United States, of which, the thought behind such a pledge is that these United States and what this country stands for, is something worth pledging our lives and our honor to. This would presuppose that America, in its institutions and in its governance, does the very things that it is supposed to do for a country that within its founding documents and amendments to such, tells us that it is a nation of equal rights for everyone, and with liberty and justice for all.
So then, it would certainly seem reasonable that when it comes to conflicts that each of us, must at least on occasion, attend to; that a fair and discerning person would look to emulate its own government in the resolution of those conflicts, knowing that by doing so, that they have picked a good and valued mentor to so emulate. Of course, as in life, there are words, and then there are actions that may or may not be in accordance with those words; signifying that in recognition that many a person doesn't even know the words to the highest law of their land, that is, its Constitution, that an alternative way to be consistent to the country of their residence, is to be in harmony with those governmental actions so taken and in evidence to our own eyes.
For example, one might look at how America resolves its disputes with a foreign land that is sovereign in its own domain, but does not kowtow to America demands. We find that rather than using an international tribunal to adjudge such, or a non-partial third party to resolve such, that the President of the United States, as in the case with Iraq, demanded that the President of Iraq, along with his sons, vacate their own country within 48 hours or else they would suffer a military attack upon their land. This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the most might and power, should simply demand that the other party, leave town within 48 hours or suffer thereby a physical attack.
So too, America has signed many a treaty with many a nation, of which, some of those treaties have been signed with indigenous American Indian tribes, of which a significant amount of those treaties were thereby broken by the United States, in order to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny", or because there were mineral rights that needed to be exploited, or railroads that needed to be built, and so on. This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the superior might or greed, can unilaterally break their commitment or promise to the other party, without having to pay any compensation or penalty for having done so.
Additionally, upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, in which Lincoln was duly elected by the people as the new President of the United States, those of the south that lost that election, decided that they had the right to secede from the union, with the belief that those that lose at the ballot box have the right to overturn a legitimate democratic result by revolt. This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in which one party loses the vote of the people, that the loser of such, can simply invalidate that vote by opting out of an inviolable contract, because they are not happy with the result.
Unfortunately, though we are told to resolve our conflicts in a mature way, our own government, demonstrates more often than not, that it isn't mature in its own vision and its own implementation of justice, of which a fairer look at America would indicate that it fundamentally believes that might makes right; which thereby effectively supersedes the very words of its own Constitution. Yet, somehow this country thereby has the nerve to wonder why there is so much conflict and confusion within its own borders.