OK, misguided political query: does the UN's decade-long failure to deal with war crimes in Syria and the US-led military strike without UN approval mean that the UN is a spent force as far as war crimes are concerned?
If so, if going through the UN is futile, is there a better way to deal with a sovereign nation in a civil war committing war crimes? Is it OK for a few nations to take it on themselves to retaliate?
This is a serious query. I would like to believe in the UN and the ICC and the structures of the international community, but it's hard to argue that they have been effective. I am extremely skeptical about 'coalitions of the willing', but I don't have any better notion in mind. I loathe the idea that people have no business enforcing human rights in other nations, but I have no faith that there is an effective way to enforce those rights, either.
In short: is there a good way to minimize the chances that dictators will commit war crimes against their own citizens? Is there a way that, if not good, is better than living with atrocities?
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,