All solid discussion points.
I was going to argue there is incorrect assessments that there is only war as an enforceability.. we are all forgetting the existence of sovereign laws? Remember Isaac versus Skeleton. A domestic case was adjudicated by domestic courts. Contracts could be recognized and protected by national law, and the difference in various national contract laws would encourage competition and experimentation. Some regions could attract settlement through a rule of law and strong bilateral agreements with other nations to encourage cross border compliance.
But, none of the above takes away from the amazing discussion about limits of procedurally enforcing contracts, as your points apply to domestic as well as imperial cases or models.
I still personally encourage some of you all to consider a domestic model of enforcement, for since the empire never interfered before, why centralise a power and take those rights away from sovereigns?
