United Nations international security mandate needs deep rethinking and reform

[myata]

The deep foundational issue is: the claim, principle cannot exist without enforcement. Otherwise, it could and will be subverted all the way to the point where it means nothing, creating two alternative and starkly different realities: the paper one; and the real reality. That is a useless and dangerous avenue, and there's no point in following it.

The second fundamental weakness is: granting a privilege without any form of accountability. In the history of humankind this idea never worked, and it failed yet again.

So, something along these lines can be suggested.

The General Assembly as the world forum is retained. The membership though is limited to the commitment and observation of the UN Charter that is enforced by the World Security Council (the compliant states). Those words are not just pretty words: they have consequences.

UN Security council is disbanded by the GA majority vote. In its place a coucil/court of 31 (example) nations is elected for certain mandate term. Principal nuclear states can be allowed a "conventional" seat on the council for some initial period; however, no state that is not a member or is found non-compliant can sit on the council. There's no right of veto. Decisions with grave consequences such as possible intervention or determination of non-compliance made by qualified vote.

Membership of a state is conditional on it observing the Statue and the Charter of the United Nations at all times. A determination of non-observance can be made by both the GA (simple vote) or WSC. On determination of non-observance, WSC must decide on possible suspension of the allegedly violating member.

The reasons: principles cannot be declarative only because a connection between the word and the reality has to be maintained at all times. There's no point in going in cycles creating imaginary realities that have little or nothing to do with the real one.