Yes it does. You are speculating about how they ‘could’ do this, as if they haven’t.

Given that they have, that speculation is moot.

Clearly this kind of contract hasn’t been ‘powerful’ enough to prevent this kind of problem from emerging.

I'm replying to "forcing is wrong!" with "it wouldn't need to be forced, X wouldn't be force".

You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.

“well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical”

No - I’m saying that didn’t keep their supply chain ‘ethical’. Perhaps nothing could have done.

"ah but they tried and failed"

Weird that you put this in quote marks as if it’s something I said. It’s not. You might be saying that, but I am not.

Contracts aren’t magic. It’s not a ‘failure’ when someone breaks one. What a contract would do is give Apple the legal mechanism to switch to another supplier despite having agreed to pay Wistron to make iPhones.

The contract only means something if one of the parties doesn’t do what is expected.