Yes, I agree with you about the outlook, though I am not sure of what the time line might be..

The ideal situation would of course be that the UN Charter was on the same footing as national law in all member states, though, that is clearly not the case and there is no prospect for it to ever be so..

Worse, the current situation in the Security Council is untenable and is already moving the mandate of international relations to organisations like NATO and the EU..

The West has collectively been so focused on capitalizing on their self assigned 'peace dividends' after the fall of the USSR that they actually believed that business partnership would change the CCP - and they forgot that the KGB was still very much an existential threat..

I'm not sure there ever was any chance of the UN transcending the problems of its predecessor, rather, I think it is not too early even now to look back on it as a modernized League of Nations that served a useful purpose to the sides of the Cold War and then just carried on under the ageis of the the US and its dozen aircraft carriers, so long as it didn't get in the way of our war aims, and so long as it wasn't really needed for something important like stopping the next world war (a task which it clearly can never be used for, any more than it would have been able to do anything to coordinate the business challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.. ).

The current problem came about because the West has come too late to the realization that the EU (and even NATO) will not survive Putin's undermining at their borders..

The looming problem is that they do not yet seem to realize that East Asia as it stands with Western aligned Japan, South Korea, etc., will not survive a similar act by China against Taiwan, or even just a Cuban missile crisis style 'quarantine'..

And, of course, each one of these potential flash points for WWIII takes time and resources to (we hope) defuse, as the window for reducing our petrochemical usage closes..

I appreciate the Lewis Caroll quote, as it is very apt; my interest, such as I can have any effect at all, is in understanding how such words are used in international information systems that make up the infrastructure of those organizations, and to shed some light wherever I am able.. Collectively, the UN and its constellation of NGOs, the EU, ASEAN and the large nascent trade organizations like RCEP and CPTPP are, semantically speaking, some of the most complex structures ever created ; here again, it would be great if all the rules in these organizations were collectively spelled out in 'black and white' as it were, but even internally, that is not the case - to say nothing of the fast emerging ad hoc relationships between these organizations..

Understanding how all these organizations and their power structure works would be great, but that is almost insurmontable complexity studded with jealousy guarded secrets.. In them, just as with other complex systems, there is a need for finding patterns that are not necessarily in 'black and white'.. Journalism has a large role in the matter, but, I think semantic analysis does too - especially for discerning patterns in the the vast oceans of open communications within and between those systems..

Hopefully, they can can be brought beyond their 20th century origins to legitimately serve some role in the imperatives of preventing conflict and coordinating our collective response to climate change to get out of all the messes we have made..

Thank you again for taking the time to think about this topic. I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss it here.