When it comes to issues of routing, e.g. the gibberish currently coming
out of AS3266, I think that it is already well and widely understood that
the the one and only "enforcement" mechanism that exists is what might
simply be called "peer pressure".

Apologies for misinterpreting your original point.

In short, I don't think that it takes all that much in the way of mental
gymnastics to tease apart the intent and spirit of a contractual term
and its enforcement. These are clearly two separate things.

In contrast, I think that it is a reasonable assumption to say that
very nearly 100% of all RIPE members do at least glance over the
contracts they sign with RIPE before they sign them.

Are you suggesting that the NCC should include a statement in the LIR account agreement (discouraging hijacking) that they will subsequently not intend to enforce (in most if not all cases)?

While the threat of legal action might scare some off, I don't feel like it will convince the majority of hijackers to cease, less so if it is known that the NCC is unlikely to enforce it.