Via the Brothers Judd we have Michael Kinsley saying that

International law says [...] says, "Thou shalt not use military force without the approval of the Security Council — even if thou art the United States of America

There goes the right of self defense. Beyond that, however, we don't see Kinsley going on about France's latest invasion which not only does not have the approval of the UNSC but for which permission was not even asked. One also might note that the coming invasion of Iraq is a direct consequence of Iraq using military force without permission of the UNSC, a come-uppance to which Kinsley seems strongly opposed. This puts him in the position of arguing for no penalties for violating "International Law". But what is law if there are no consequences for violation? Kinsley provides no reason why the US should obey while no one else does. Indeed, Kinsley's phrasing implies that the US is the only violator. But Kinsley is close - just remove the word "even" from his statement and you get what he really means.