>Ah, but if each country reserves the right to evaluate them... they become quite useless. OTOH, they are the word which remains. You can measure your country's worth by counting the number of resolutions it ignored :).

They already do this in practice. Each country picks the resolutions is chooses to follow, and which ones to ignore, and the degree to which they do either.

If I am not mistaken, the very first chapter of the U.N. charter calls on all members to resolve their disputes peacefully. At a glance, I think there are probably a large number of member countries who ignored this, including the U.S.

>And the US laws say that any international treaty they sign is as good as law. And there's also a separation of jurisdictions between the states and the federation. Likewise, the UN are only as much of a world parliament as world agrees for it to be. Still it is a place where the world meets to discuss and pass texts which are more or less mandatory for members. We can only discuss whether UN has too much or too little influence and ingerence.

I think the U.N. is wonderful for diplomacy. It is a central place where nations can get together and talk about their differences. Beyond that, I have not yet seen its effectiveness.

>And did Israel choose well each of 60+ times?

I don't think so on the issue of the pre-1967 borders, but I am not as informed on the issue as well as I would like to be. It is a very complex issue. On one hand, Israel did not start the 1967 war. On the other, there are those on the radical right in Israel who won't stop until every Arab is out of the area.