This is very wrong. You are conflating issues of enforceability with legal obligations. Just because the international system lacks a centralised, enforcement mechanism does not mean that legal obligations do not exist. Similarly, it is wrong to say that some are more legally binding than others - they are either binding or they are not. Treaties that have been consented to and ratified by individual States are binding on those states - this is not an aberration from the principle of state sovereignty, but an affirmation of that principle. Another accepted source of international law is that of customary international law [CIL], which again may create rights and obligations for states. These are not 'soft law', in whatever sense you may understand the concept to be.
It is also wrong to broadly assert that agreements and declarations are soft law. Treaties between say, two states are bilateral agreements and would bind the respective states. Declarations from the UN General Assembly are broadly speaking non-binding although they may turn binding through becoming a part of CIL over time. Also, as the Nuclear Tests Case between Australia and France suggested, unilateral declarations by a state may have the effect of creating legal duties - there, France conducted nuclear tests in the South Pacific Ocean despite its authorities having had in the past declared that they would refrain from undertaking nuclear tests.
Now, generally speaking, the concept of soft law deals with those normative instruments which are not legally-binding. There can come from resolutions, recommendations or even specific organisaitons within the international framework. Again, they may develop into CIL and become legally binding given appropriate time and conditions.
I appreciate your input! But what I've said isn't "very wrong" - Perhaps we have different understandings of the terminology, or perhaps it is applied in different (perhaps even slightly simplified) ways in the HSC Legal Studies course
Of course legal obligations do exist - Never did I say that they don't. I said that "no international law is completely binding on a nation state." This is true however you look at it. The principle of state sovereignty allows a nation state to sign and ratify a treaty, yes, but the nation state can also withdraw.
Never intended to imply that
all agreements/declarations are soft law, apologies if it came across that way
I
did mean to say that some international legal frameworks are more binding than others, or perhaps the better word there would be
enforceable - Because as you say, you can't really enforce customary law directly until you have it reflected in a treaty or other document, at least to my understanding
It really does seem like we're saying essentially the same thing - Perhaps I could have chosen better words, or perhaps the way I understand them from the course I took is different to your understanding. Regardless, thanks for your input
Edit: I mean just to add, you are doing Law, I'm not, I'm happy to take your technicalities as correct over mine. But like, in HSC Legal Studies, a bit much to say that I'm completely wrong I think