Why known treaty penalties still need proof

Could a treaty state the consequences of breaking its limits instead of relying on a vague threat?

It could, but the signatories would still dispute the penalty's scope, the proof required, inspection rights, and whether intelligence sources must be exposed.

Writing a known consequence into a treaty does not remove the decisions needed to apply it. Governments must still choose which trade or products to restrict, what conduct crosses the threshold, and who verifies the breach. Even weighing a suspect ship raises inspection and access problems, while proof may depend on espionage that a state does not want to reveal. A fixed penalty can therefore remain a blunt and contested tool rather than an automatic answer to noncompliance.