"This article considers whether international intervention by the United Nations in Burma can be justified according to principles of current international law (jus ad bellum as distinguished from the jus in bello). Those propositions which are put forward as principle but do not as yet form part of positive law are assessed and distinguished from current international norms. It is argued that in reaching impasse and political stagnation, the Security Council has undermined principles of legal certainty and consistency extant, and held sacrosanct, by the international community as well as within many domestic jurisdictions including Burma itself1. The article considers that while Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) may have shifted the language of intervention to ?responsibility” nevertheless this remains a matter of semantics. Indeed, the international community only exercises powers, as opposed to duties, in respect of other individual states. However, certain reforms of the relationship between the organs of the United Nations are put forward which would help to better enforce the international rule of law, rather than perpetuating the international rule of politics and bowing to the political will of the Permanent Members. Moreover, whilst action with regards to Burma is crucial not only as a moral necessity, should such a reform be recognised, it would become a matter of legal necessity..."