Why does the U.S. disagree with all of the efforts, tribunals, courts, and declarations of international law
I think that more specific detail is going to be needed in the question. At the risk of sounding patriotic, I am not entirely certain that the United States disagrees with all of the efforts of international accords. For example, in the recent disagreement with Syria, at this point and time, the United States has sought internationalism as an approach to the problem. Abiding by United Nations' resolutions against Syria and advocating for Special Envoy Kofi Annan to speak with President Al- Assad is an example of how the United States is in agreement with declarations of International Law. At the same time, in the recent intervention against Libya, the United States participated in an international effort against Gaddafi's regime. Unilateral action was not taken, and it certainly was not taken against the will and efforts of the international community. Even in Iran, the current administration is seeking to use economic and diplomatic pressure through sanctions, as opposed to pursuing a course of action that isolates the international community. I would say that one of the reasons why the current President is being criticized by so many of his Republican opponents is because he seems to be acting in accord with the declarations of International Law and not breaking from them in the embrace of unilateral military action.