Public international law carries no overall sanction for its breach, beyond economic sanctions (usually ineffective), military intervention, or trade warfare (bit like economic sanctions, really). There is no possibility of impartial administration of international law.
As regards Egypt, I am sometimes afflicted by the suspicion that the whole business was a carefully-cloaked military coup, not against the Muslim Brotherhood, but against Mubarak. The Republic of Egypt has, since its inception, been ruled by military officers, usually wearing lounge suits, supported by the Army. Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak - all “former” Army officers. Mubarak, however, had outstayed his welcome with the serving generals and had, indeed, become an embarrassment due to a number of corruption scandals. Nor was his obvious intention to create a dynasty by putting his son on the “throne” particularly attractive to the Brass. The Egyptian Army may not have initiated the uprising, but clearly facilitated it at an early stage. Knowing the political landscape of Egypt well, the generals would have realized that the revolt would probably unseat the already wobbly Mubarak, and lead to an election resulting in Muslim Brotherhood rule, from which the country would have to be “rescued” by its loyal and patriotic army, leading to renewed military dictatorship in the old style. Which is exactly what happened.
Very Egyptian, all told. Yours from the Old Bizarre in Cairo, JR.