The just-released report of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change surpasses the expectations of sceptics who had written off the 16 panellists as relics of a bygone age reforming a relic of an institution.

It has substance, is clear-eyed in critiquing the United States where necessary, and balanced in appraising the world's dangers and the required response.

If the panel's report, submitted by its chairman, former Thai PM Anand Panyarachun, is taken constructively at the UN and brave decisions are made, it promises the most far-reaching change to the international order doctrinally and institutionally since 1945, laying the ground for the UN's redemption for the next half-century.

Staggering from the political shockwaves of the Iraq crisis, the UN has been severely strained these past two years. Yet the fault-lines were felt a decade ago, once the post-Cold War euphoria had ceded to despair and cynicism after Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda.

Today, the contentious issues challenging policy-makers include the rights of pre-emptive defence, of humanitarian intervention against atrocities within a state, forcible weapons of mass destruction, disarmament, and intrusive and draconian counter-terrorism measures. Institutionally, the issue is the structure, powers and procedures of the Security Council.

The report's 101 recommendations cover threat perception, preventive measures, and peace-building. But the two key issues are the use of force and the legitimacy of the Security Council.

The panel says, first, that the self-defence provision in the UN Charter requires no change. Cold War interventions citing self-defence had simply lacked credibility. Today, pre-emptive strikes against truly imminent threats, such as terrorism, are legally permissible - a nod towards Washington.

But, says the panel, that was always the case under the inherent right of self-defence. Longer-term threats, such as a weapons of mass destruction programmes and hostile intent, are different.

While they may be valid concerns, they require UN authorisation before force can be used. The risk to global order makes unilateral preventive action unacceptable. That said, the Security Council should, in the panel's view, be more proactive.

Second, the UN may now intervene in member countries to halt genocide or comparable atrocities.

If governments are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens from such abuses, the UN may henceforth authorise military intervention under a new responsibility to protect doctrine.

Five criteria of legitimacy should facilitate consensus in the Security Council: seriousness of threat, proper purpose, force as a last resort, proportional means, and ensuring a balance of consequences.