Since the Security Council's construction virtually guarantees a null vote save in cases of unanimous consent, I view such "laws" as trivial inconveniences at best, backed neither by practical enforcement nor moral judgment. (It would be one thing, if, for example, one could trust the permanent members of the Security Council to *only* intervene on moral/ethical grounds.)

To be fair, however, my view is not US-centric and applies equally to all countries. I am, in fact, a general fan of international community, coalition building, and the use of international fora to find alternative conflict resolutions that do not involve the use of force. I do not see these entities as exercising legitimate supra-legal authority over any nation in absolute terms, but I do not dismiss their improtance.