I don't disagree at all, because the mandate of the UN Security Council is precisely described in relation to threats to international peace and security. I think you should keep the flexibility as broad.... I think it might be helpful to give examples of what can be a threat to international peace and security, saying this is what the broad mandate is and then presenting some examples of what it could be, but keeping it open. The key is that when you impose measures against a state, or particularly against an individual, it's at that point that you're very specific.
In this case, the threat to international peace and security is terrorism, terrorist attacks, a violation of humanitarian rights, or use of child soldiers. Whatever it may be, that's when you define it very specifically, but the governing legislation is always very broad.
I don't have any trouble with it as it's defined in the current SEMA. It's just that when it goes to the specific orders, it's really hard to see what precise situation falls within that. That's where I think you have to be careful to define it.