Whilst you're right to point to aspects of the Charter which do shape the intervention landscape, it's important not to over-emphasise the the Charter's role as a constraint on the possibilities of intervention, compared to the political realities which have far more telling influence. The states themselves are the real problem, not the Charter.

Ultimately resolutions made under Chapter VII authority grant the Council a wide ambit under which to contemplate and deliver an array of military and non-military responses. Regardless, reform would help, but unfortunately, the neo-conservative project has grossly discredited intervention advocates, just as it has done for democracy promotion, and so advocates for reform have an uphill battle.

Yes the ICC could constitute a useful tool, except that not all states are signatories.The major unsigned nation, America, has citizens doing their best to implement the constitution via impeachment and thus effectively implementing the ICC. It is indicative of the usual problem, implementation. Many states have incorporated the Rome Statute into their criminal codes including Australia (268) but they do not act, as indeed signing obligates them to do, test whether there is a case for prosecution for war crimes. Correction they act against those without power but not against the current ’in group’ It was ever thus!
Thus we have a lot of verbiage to which we subscribe indicative of our moral superiority but then like the hypocrites we are, do not act. We do not even attempt at Government level to ensure that our media at least gives factual reports in the diminishing space remaining after d the trivia. Sure such must be separate, in the way the law is from Government direction or the belief the media trades on that to limit them denies freedom, is infringed. True but the right of a democratic citizen to be factually informed or at least truthfully, is happily ignored. Opinion or hype or spin becomes the message of the day.
Eric Alterman has written a book “When Presidents Lie” showing the damage that can occur by a lie and since the press then and now was partisan rather than factual they to must be judged accomplices in the consequence. Much is common Knowledge but the fact that FDR (Roosevelt) lied about Yalta is new to me. Alterman then gives evidence how this lead to imposition of a cold war whose intensity we not have experienced.
Cromwell and Edwards in “Guardians of Power” have written of the myth of the liberal media as have many others since Herman and Chomsky wrote “Manufacturing Consent, the political economy of the mass media”1988.
It seems like most problems solution only is attempted when the situation becomes critical or the populace has been thoroughly chastened by war or catastophe

Untutored mind,

The "damage that could occur by a lie" is indeed quite relevant to the UN body, despite its convincing charter on human rights. Maybe a 'good' lie serves a purpose, as the Muslim 12th-century mystic cleric Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali, perhaps considered one of the greatest Moslems after Mohammed, wrote, "If a lie is the only way to obtain a good result, it is permitted. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results."

The big lie that fuels anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation materialized in a vacuum. In 2004 the U.N.'s June anti-Semitism conference served to invigorate a two-track approach: Put the Jews on one side, Israel on the other - i.e. divide and conquer. Historically, Arab and Muslim states unabashedly take the offensive, hijacking the medium of human rights to serve a political agenda aimed at denying Jewish self-determination and destroying the Jewish state — the ultimate form of anti-Semitism. A UN 2004 report on Human Rights abuse began by analogizing Israel to apartheid South Africa, despite the fact that Arab states have virtually purged themselves of Jews, while in Israel the 20 percent Arab population enjoys more democratic rights than anywhere in the Arab world.

The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization. Let's 'call a spade a spade', so to speak. In a 1968 appearance at Harvard, Martin Luther King said, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." I wonder, would Martin Luther King find a home at the United Nations or its allied nongovernmental human-rights organizations?

As any doc,a UN charter is a paper only, and a reality of a response to international conflicts rests on the major international players-donors willingness to subsidy particular UN interventions.

BBOY.. for once I agree with you.

<<The states themselves are the real problem, not the Charter. >>

Notice though, that article 39 is directly connected to the 'security council' which of course is a euphemism for "Those who won the last war and other significant parties(China)"

Why is Dafour not being solved ? CHINA.. whenever a conflict places one member of the security council on opposite sides to the rest.. VETO powers reign.. correct?

We all know about the proxy wars in African states.. resources and Western Economic interests sponsoring the various factions are at the core of it.. and the likelihood of a State with greedy eyes and drooling lips lusting after diamonds or oil or whatever then committing economic Hari Kiri by advocating intervention which would thwart their side.. is something similar to pigs flying.

So..given this rubber meets the road reality.. lets GET OUT of many of the UN treaties..OR.. revamp out signatory status in OUR interests.. by adding appropriate qualifications/reservations.

-[UN convention on eliminating all forms of discrimination.]

Reservation "Australia reserved the right to deny any person entry or migration based on any factor considered a threat to:
a)Social and Cultural Cohesian and Australian identity.
b)Political Stability.
c)National Security.

BUT BUT BUT..... (bleets the PC crowd, ethnic/migrant lobby, and various other seditious forces)

RESPONSE *Not Negotiable*

Just an example of a number of reservations we have to make soon.

The argument might be advanced "But this just means we want to discriminate" *bingo* absoLUTELY!
Response: "The elimination of discrimination based on sound reasons is tantamount to diluting our society with a view to undermining it"

As the first poster obscured well

A great deal can be done by the International Court of Justice

If only the USA were a signatory

fluff4