Mario Loyola argues for ignoring the U.N. Charter so that we can get down the important business of attacking other countries:

In the arena of humanitarian intervention, U.S. diplomacy should abandon the language of the Charter and get back to basics. Article 2(7) of the Charter enshrines the principle of non-interference “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” If the text of the Charter is strictly followed, there are only two exceptions for this rule: (1) enforcement action by the Council under Chapter VII, on threats to the peace, and (2) collective or individual self-defense under Article 51, if an armed attack occurs.

That rule is silly in practice, and wrong in principle. Among other things, it implies that diplomatic recognition for the representatives of a given regime — which requires only that the regime control its territory — automatically triggers the full rights of sovereignty. It can’t, and it shouldn’t.

Actually, what it implies is that the sovereignty of member states of the U.N. is guaranteed in order to preserve international peace and security. This has often been overlooked in practice, but in principle it is very sensible. Loyola would like to eliminate that protection because it gets in the way of interfering in the internal affairs of other states. This argument has one advantage of being refreshingly direct: the sort of unauthorized intervention so many people are demanding violates the U.N. Charter, so the limits imposed by the Charter should be tossed aside. Contra Loyola, the U.S. has no right to intervene in Syria on its own. The U.S. does not possess the right to attack U.N. member states whose governments we regarded as illegitimate. If we were to open that door and make that the explicit policy of our government, you can be sure that other states would follow suit by targeting weaker governments that they choose to define as illegitimate.

Loyola writes elsewhere:

Most explosively, Locke argued that where there was foreign occupation or tyranny (the two were equivalent in his thinking), there was no government properly so-called, and the people then had the right to establish a government, by force of arms if necessary.

I found this part more than a little amusing, since the 1688 Revolution was the result of a foreign invasion, including an effective occupation of London by Dutch troops until 1690. That must mean that the newly-established government that Locke was supporting was illegitimate.