[dragonwriter]

> One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2].

Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the court for disputes between nations in the UN system, and the ICC, a newer court to which parties to the Rome Statute have delegated some part of their (universal, under international law) jurisidiction over individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and, most recently, aggression.

But that's also not the reason for the veto; in fact, the veto contributes to this problem with the ICJ.

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

That's obviously an alternative, other alternatives exist, including one with a weaker but extent international body for nations to come to the table (proven, the League of Nations existed), and ones with a stronger body, with its own organic capabilities (and potentially greater independent legitimacy, e.g., by direct election of some key officers rather than appointment by member states.)

The UN isn't the only possible international federation.

[mmastrac]

The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

The UN is probably the most successful international union because of its pragmatic approach, but it seems like most international political alliances fall apart within 100 years.

Other non-political international bodies seem to have more luck: the ITU -- the International Telecommunication Union -- has been around for 150 years. The International Labour Organization outlasted the League of Nations and became part of the UN.

[bluish29]

> The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

UN did not prevent WWIII. It is the mere fact that nuclear weapons and MAD made the global superpowers realize that there is no winning in such war. And that a security competition and proxy wars are acceptable. But direct confrontation to be be avoided at all costs. It is not like US, Russia (probably china and others too) do respect the UN that much anyway.

If nuclear weapons existed before WWII, There is a slim chance that it would happen.

UN did not protect iraq and Ukraine from illegal invasions such that League of nations did not protect Ethiopia in the past. The mere fact that in all cases no body wanted to confront a major power invading another country far away.