Bergerie1
Whenever the subject of how ICAO functions (or how it doesn't) gets into discussions on this forum, there is reason to pause and try to think deeper, or since that is like editing one's own writing, at least think more accurately.
ICAO was driven into existence by fewer than all the countries who were then participants in the global civil aviation sector, obviously. Further the U.S. and the U.K. were the dominant writers, producers, and directors of the dramatic presentation from which the Chicago Convention as well as the Organization grew. Perhaps there is a cue to be found for problem-solving in the current era.
Acceptance is the only realistic option, with regard to the viewpoint that ICAO cannot - because it is not structured legalistically or operationally to do so! - control either airlines operating into or through the airspace in which "conflicts" are taking place, let alone those airspace areas themselves. By default, other groupings at the level of global civil aviation must be the venues for the effort, at least, to bring some additional order (stability, security, assurance) to the otherwise too-frequent chaos. Maybe there are those, in official capacities and underground - or under the radars as it were - who prefer the current state of affairs. I haven't yet found my contemporaneous notes from the 2015 Second High-Level Safety Conference but I do recall having found worthy of objection certain comments by the representative of the Russian Federation (but, caveat; perhaps their comment pertained instead to the agenda item on global flight tracking).
The case should be made and, the point which is the purpose of this post, the case can be made, that IATA and IFALPA can serve roles less than "All Member States" level which is the bailiwick of ICAO, and yet also greater than just unilateral. Also, not just two major players, as was the case on Chicago's lakefront in 1944. There are examples to be found in very current, that is very contemporary, organizational leverage programs. Canada recently (to name the prime example) developed and established a nationwide non-profit to guide, direct and oversee its national strategy for digital research (the NDRIO). This grew directly, purposefully and deliberately that is, from something called LCDRI, Leadership Council on Digital Research Infrastructure (universities, data consortia, research entities, and more). No reason interested airlines and pilots unions and associations, aided by others who likewise have proven bona fides for realistic approaches to what can be done, as well as some savvy and gumption to take on the more ineffective voices within the diplomatic corps who focus mostly on niceties, could not convene a similar effort and derive some sort of coordinated approach.
It's worth a shot. To avoid yet another SAM shot, that is.