For now we are only aware of one successful case of humanitarian intervention which was during Kenyan unrest. It was also more about diplomatic and political aid than a military action.
R2P (Responsibility to protect) by it's definition is very ambiguous , which states- If a state fails to protect it's citizens ,it then becomes the responsibility of the international community to protect that state's population in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It includes use of military force by the international community if peaceful measures prove inadequate. The UN outcome document was unanimously adopted by all member states but is not legally binding.
Now the application of R2P has significantly been misused in most cases especially since Libyan intervention. R2P is not solely about military intervention and should be the last resort , if at all.
R2P also includes "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" .
Humanitarian intervention, as you said, originally includes protection, prevention, reconstruction and nation building. It also includes relief work. There are more cases that are considered successful (despite mass killings). Japan, Austria, Germany, Italy (Post WWII) - reconstruction and nation building, prevention for Japan. Kuwait - reconstruction and protection. Berlin Airlift. However, as past events have demonstrated, intervention can prove to be a disaster, even if for relief purpose(Somalia).
I doubt member countries were unaware that R2P was going to be misused one day. Bigger powers must have known. Smaller ones might have been idealistic.
Independent UN- The configuration of power will always be dependent on economics. It would always favor the "rich" nations because of their contributing power, which is similar to how things usually operate in the world, otherwise. The key would be like you mentioned , in dismantling the power block i.e. permanent chairs of security council by removing the veto power and letting the whole structure be democratic. But I very much doubt if it could be achieved considering the big 5 won't want to let go of this power as it gives them a leverage . UN has it's hands tied down when it comes to political situations.
An independent UN strips away sovereignty and no country wants that. - Interesting point, but won't an independent UN rather be more suited to decide upon the status of a state than say a one which would be influenced by few handful of powerful nations . Why would non-influential countries , oppose it . Or you refer to situations like Kashmir or Gaza.
Independent doesn't mean it couldn't become corrupt, inefficient or authoritarian so it may or may not be more suited. Sovereignty essentially implies supreme and independent authority. A body that assigns status, can always take it away, which means no country (in such a system) is sovereign. Non-influential countries have learnt from history, experience and observation that an independent UN doesn't and most probably won't exist. They have also understood that many other international organisations and treaties (GATT) cater to those with more contributing power. Leaders of most of these countries receive education in powerful countries and dance to their tune (Jawaharlal Nehru - Lord/Edwina Mountbatten, though India is influential). Some non-influential ones are too small and dependent on bigger powers to demand equal status at the international level (a few among the Commonwealth Realm). Those who voice their protests or go against the system are finished or replaced (If you believe Chavez's assassination was plotted by the CIA, Afghanistan).
Economic sanctions- are more of a joke these days .The reason why certain Western European countries keeping mum on Ukraine situation is because of their economic ties with Russia . Should the UN not be more strict with economic restrictions and prohibition . It can also ban export of weapons to the state under conflict.
Countries that want to export weapons will do so at any cost to fulfill personal agenda. They might flout rules openly or covertly - Iran/Hezbollah. Why would anyone mess with an aggressive country home to abundant natural gas and nuclear strength? What happens when countries at the top of the UN ladder want to supply arms and ammunition? If Russia quits exporting arms to Syria, its trade would be adversely affected. Why would it self-destruct? Jewish lobbies with financial clout press the US to support Israel with weaponry. Why would the US disagree? Why would countries not sell weapons to Pakistan, when balancing power in the region is a primary motivation? More importantly, there will always be black market transactions.
Nuclear strength - It would just let to other forms of war like terrorism , insurgency etc
Ceasefire- is not a solution to a problem . it just is a way of biding time and now is used as a way of making political statements.
Ceasefire can be the first step to resolving a conflict. What it has become is a different issue altogether.
UN- A biased UN will always be short-changed in handling matters of conflict. But then democratically , it would encourage lobbying , power-blocks . Perhaps the process and conditions of a conflict to be heard and addressed in UN can be tightened.
Democratically led countries- It would depend also on how democracy is implemented. Democracy in a state might not assure no outside attack but it can remove a greater probability on internal unrest.
You reckon a Hitler like situation can happen or ignored , in current times.
I don't understand what you mean by Hitler like situation. If you mean dictators can rise to power through a democratic process and govern like Hitler, it is very possible (I wonder if China is evolving into a Hitler like country). If you are talking about a dictator trying to wipe out a community, such things are happening (Hutus vs. Tutsis, Bhutanese vs. Nepalese in Bhutan), though not on a large scale or of equal atrociousness, and are ignored or downplayed.
Cultural Imperialism - I don't know non-violence could be used as a practical way of dealing with border unrest like say in case of Gaza strip. It at bests works well while building a state , internally . Then too a non-violent protest against a dictator might just attract international community for military interventions.
Non-violent revolutions basically are of 3 types - when a government refuses to use force against people but people are willing to become violent, when people are non-violent but a government is okay with employing violent tactics and when both parties are non-violent. In the Hawaiian revolution, non-violence successfully deposed the one-party dominant regime (an internal force). In the Indian war of Independence, non-violent tactics played a major role in getting rid of an external force. There were other factors that influenced both conflicts but were largely characterized by non-violent methods. Gaza is a different story and I too doubt non-violence would work here. It could garner greater international support for the Palestinian cause and public shaming for Israel. Anything more than that? maybe, maybe not.
How different would an International govt be from UN? Won't it also be constructed on imbalance of power.
A world government is a hypothetical construct. Regulations would be legally binding, unlike those of the UN. No nation would be sovereign. They would resemble state governments. Power could be centralized or decentralized, unlike the UN that was founded on decentralized cooperation. If power is centralized, the world government could become totalitarian. If power is decentralized and the institution is democratic and just, the Earth might become a better place to live on. Wealth and resources would be proportionately distributed. Economy could be capitalist, socialist or mixed. Culturally speaking, a policy of either accommodation or assimilation would be adopted. The government might make efforts to homogenize people. Minority groups might be treated as specimens in a museum. If the government becomes dictatorial and imposes unfair laws in a region, humanitarian intervention for humanitarian reasons may not happen. In short, it can go both ways.
Agree stability is more about how the people respond to it. But I feel if ever there is a need for international council to play the police then what should be the ways to go about it. Can they cripple a conflict economically? How would you describe the appeasement between conflicting nations?
There are too many conflicts to cripple economically. Decision makers would financially suffer if they go around genuinely trying to cripple all conflicts. Besides, there's underground economy to sustain bloody aggression. For instance: Al Qaeda is funded through drug money.
Some conflicting nations choose not to fight bloody battles. When Chinese maps laid claim on Indian territories (Cartographic aggression challenging India's territorial integrity), India released a statement. The US appeasement of Iran has endowed Iran with nuclear capabilities. Appeasement, today, is because of weak global economy. High interdependence and connectivity have made the world a smaller place. (Burmese nuke = South East Asia in trouble. A conflict in China will cause tremendous destabilization). Democracy, post Bush administration, has made it difficult for governments to militarily intervene anywhere/anytime/anyhow, if not impossible. Many countries are stuck with their own problems and are least interested in putting up a fight against an external agency. No country really is non-aligned and most have a Big Brother. Recent conflicts have shown that outcomes can't be controlled and can become monstrous. Non-government agencies have become a global threat and need to be dealt with jointly. Weapons have become more dangerous and can cause unprecedented destruction.
@lalalee - Absolutely loved reading your well thought-out comments. Much to ponder and learn.