 But there are notorious difficulties about the extent to which the UN Security Council, in particular, has complied with the international rule of law during the post-Cold War period when it has made resolutions “to maintain or restore international peace and security” under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (see Crawford 2014: Ch.XIII). The worry is that exercises of this power—e.g., to impose embargoes, authorize peace-keeping operations or military intervention, set up new rules on topics such as terrorism, establish criminal tribunals etc—is insufficiently regulated by law. Even if an argument can be made that the Security Council is bound not only by the UN Charter, but also by international law generally, a serious question remains as to the means of securing its compliance with such law. Is it enough that the legal validity of its resolutions is in principle justiciable if the issue properly arises in litigation before a court or tribunal? (ICJ 1971: p. 45, para. 88) Or should the ICJ be given the general power to review UNSC resolutions as leading scholars have suggested (Franck 1995; Crawford &amp; Marks 1998)? Ultimately, there is an issue of ensuring adequate respect for the rule of law while giving the UN Security Council the flexibility to respond effectively to any “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” (Art 39 UN Charter).