Recently the Attorneys General for most states met to try to figure out how all the treaties our federal government is creating (free trade treaties are written and negotiated by the unelected but they affect all our laws)should be interpreted with respect to state law.
In other words, the treaties are superceding state law, and they don't know how to reconcile this with their constitional directive as attorneys general. They are complaining they have no input when the treaties are developed and they have no idea sometimes, how to meet treaty requirements to prevent "barriers to trade" and still maintain state and local sovereignty.
The short answer is local code inspectors do have to follow international law, in the state of California, our fire codes are now United Nations treaty inspired.
California forest firefighting is directly influenced by the United Nations-inspired international fire policy of the Urban Wildland Intermix Code (UWIC) that appears in San Diego as law of the Wildland Urban Interface. This local law copied almost verbatim from the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), overpowers Congress and America's national sovereignty and bypasses state legislatures. More than 450 cities worldwide, including Santa Monica, California, Muncie, Indiana, and Chicago, Illinois have signed these international local government sustainable development regulations. Interface private land is scheduled soon to evolve into nature preserves or conservation corridors that link nature sanctuaries. Wildland Urban Interface firefighters invite US Fish and Wildlife experts to map potentially endangered species, and then create Habitat Conservation Plans. If your land is in an HCP, it is yours in name only. The short answer is local code inspectors do have to follow international law,
To quote Al Borland: "I don't think so Tim".
Besides, given what you've cited here you're mixing local 'building codes' in with something about forest fire fighting and what appears to be 'locally adopted' regulations that also appear somewhere else; this in itself does not seem onerous - and THAT is what you have to point out, the onerous part that is. I can't simply allow you to infer via a quote in an article that something is 'bad' simply because it was 'copied' from a foreign source ...