A UN doctrine of pre-emption?

None of this is terribly controversial. But other aspects of Bolton's letter are bound to draw a sharp response. For instance, his demand to recognise the option of responding to a humanitarian crisis ''absent authorisation of the Security Council'' is deeply divisive. Military intervention without a UN mandate raises questions over a country's motives. The Iraq war, with the post- invasion humanitarian justification, is the obvious example.

This scepticism is not blind anti-Americanism. China and Russia framed their recent joint military exercise as a hypothetical response to ethnic violence in a third country. No doubt US officials regarded this news with contempt, and instead saw it as a direct challenge to Washington.

Although it is tempting to attribute the friction at the United Nations to Bolton's abrasive personality - the ''kiss up, kick down sort of guy'' described in his aborted Senate confirmation hearings - the dispute over this idea of ''humanitarian intervention'' actually reflects a much deeper philosophical debate about the nature of world politics.

Despite the advance of globalisation, the world remains firmly divided into separate political communities, with governments that jealously guard their independence. For instance, Alexander Downer's talk of benefiting humanity did not prevent a dramatic reinforcement of Australia's sovereign border control in response to asylum-seeker arrivals.

But many people believe that human rights transcend the borders between countries, that no government has the right to systematically abuse its citizens. This debate is not new. It will outlast the latest round of UN scandals to hit the headlines, along with the tenure of John Bolton.

Finding a way for the international community to come together and establish the responsibility to protect could become a far more enduring legacy.