ICJ intervention must be put forward as a legal counterbalance to the Security Council. It helps limit the use of the veto but leaves the final decision for intervention with the Security Council. The ICJ is not a particularly good fact-finder. Its historic strength is rendering legal opinions, not conducting inquiries. The main problem is the malfunction of the Security Council, which suffers from a democratic deficit.
Crisis is needed to generate reform.
An option worth exploring is the codified non-use of the veto. On the other hand, the Security Council veto was put in place as a compromise. Geopolitical consensus is needed, which is why a veto remains necessary. Uniting for Peace is a means for getting around the Security Council. On the other hand, maybe the system has not really failed, as others have suggested.