UN has some legitimacy and authority, but if the US is hell-bent on undermining it there isn't much the rest of the world can do about it.
We have to recognize one thing: the UNSC is configured for the purpose of avoiding war between Great Powers [defined as having veto power, or by virtue of having veto power, it's a chicken-and-egg situation]. Any of them can veto a resolution authorising the use of force by the others. By the same token, the Great Powers can ride roughshod over international law, as they can veto condemnation of themselves (or their clients: see Israel). The problem of late has been the US' willingness to hijack unrelated UN actions (like renewing the mandates of humanitarian missions) to obtain concessions that the international community was not otherwise prepared to give. This is the best we can hope for: the permanent members of the UNSC can burn the planet to a crisp is they go to war against each other, and so the international system has to be designed to prevent that above all else. Preventing other wars and promoting peace among the rest of the counntries is, in practice, a desirable secondary goal.
Since the US is going to exercise its naked power whether we like it or not, we should simply dispose of NATO. I don't want Europe to be the US' fig leaf. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Kosovo is the only precedent for NATO action without UNSC authorisation. I don't think there will be another any time soon. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
I think the chances of a NATO action in defiance of the UNSC are very real. Sudan is a good possibility for it.
I don#t see a reason, if puch comes to shove, for Russia or China to veto an intervention in Sudan, so NATO won't intervene there without a UNSC resolution unless the US chooses not to seek a resolution (like in Afghanistan, by the way) and in that case NATO won't follow (though some NATO members may, like the UK or the Czech Republic). Remember the US chose not to use NATO for the Afghanistan campaign precisely because [Chomsky alert!] according to the NATO treaty it was legitimate for NATO to intervene if Afghanistan was identified as the culprit for 9/11. The US has no more interest in lending legitimcay to the NATO charter than to the UN charter, because if the NATO charter acquires legitimacy it becomes another straitjacket for US action. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
China has already opposed some of the more aggressive moves regarding Sudan. They have oil interest and clients there. I think there is a very real possibility that they would veto a UNSC resolution that wasn't to their liking. They are regularly using their veto power as a lure to establish closer ties with African states. They just persuaded Chad to break ties with Taiwan.
I agree that the US would not let a commitment to the NATO charter get in its way, but it constrains their actions less than the UN charter so for the moment it's useful. It is a place where Russia and China have no voice at all.
Sure, like these guys. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
According to its website the EPP is "a family of the political centre whose roots are deep in the history of European civilization. It unites like-minded national parties, in EU Member States and in EU applicant countries and we maintain close contact with decided probable candidate countries."
Goldwater Moment for Europe? -----sapere aude
Both the UN and the EU are effectively immobilized from taking action in a controversial situation by the requirement of unanimous agreement.
The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.
