<<Then why do you hold out hope that the UN is mankinds salvalvation when apparently there is no impedus to comply?>>
It's a good question.
First of all, because it's a new direction. For thousands of years, international relations were basically (and still are) governed by the law of the jungle. There was nothing to restrain a state from attacking another state except for superior force. Wars grew more and more destructive. The U.N. (and its predecessor the League of Nations) represents a new way where the old way has brought nothing but disaster.
Second, because it's logical. The idea just makes sense. Why shouldn't countries be able to talk out their differences in an international forum, with guidance, and possibly helpful commentary from other nations with no particular axe to grind? Or even WITH an axe to grind? What's the harm in talking?
Third, because there ARE enforcement mechanisms. Your problem with them seems to be that they are weak and ineffectual. My answer to that would be that any kind of international enforcement mechanism is bucking a five-thousand-year-old trend and it's just taking its first baby steps. With time, they will become more effective, as the more powerful nations begin to see their advantages (see next paragraph.)
Fourth, I believe that the advantages of the stronger powers submitting to international law are only just now beginning to become apparent. This is because of the diffusion of power throughout the world. As knowledge and technology spread, prior advantages in raw power are levelling, albeit slowly. In that regard, I think that 9-11 was a real eye-opener. Fifty years ago, when the UN was in its infancy, who could have imagined that a band of fanatics as small as the al Qaeda commando could have inflicted such damage on the U.S.A., not necessarily the relatively small (yet unprecedented) toll of 3,000 dead and a few tall buildings, but the ever-escalating hundreds of billions of dollars necessitated by the reaction to them? As the cost of suppressing these enemies continues to grow, the relentless effects of economic competition will make themselves felt. Other countries not beset by the "terrorist" problems of the U.S. will inevitably grow in power and influence while the U.S.A. fights its economic battles against them with one hand only, while the other hand is busy batting off "terrorist" attacks or forestalling them. The world's biggest practitioner of violent solutions will just find them no longer cost-effective.
And fifth, historical example. Just as the battling kingdoms of the English heptarchy finally found it more expedient and immensely more profitable to unite under one common government and one common law, the same process will operate in the international sphere, albeit with much greater obstacles of language, culture and race. It's just the (slow-motion) way of the future. World government is coming and the UN is just the very first step.
