Previous Post I reject the premise that operating with an expanded (even global) roster necessarily requires the adoption of a military status. There are plenty of organizations that do good both on a worldwide scale and on a ground-level basis that are about as far removed from any sort of military operations or ethos as you can get. To a large extent, I suppose it depends on how you see the nature of a superhero team, because if you already see it as a superhuman (or even cosmic-level) extension of a law enforcement agency or "peace-keeping" military force to begin with, then the jurisdictional issues could be problematic, but if you see it as something like the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders (or even firefighters) with some superhuman muscle behind them, then it doesn't change the ethics of the thing at all. I suspect you see the Lair Legion as a Lawful Good team, whereas I see it as a Neutral Good team, which just so happens to have switched from a Lawful Good leader to a Chaotic Good leader. Bottom line, it comes down to a question of whether you see a superhero team as something that upholds order and rules (albeit benevolently intended ones), or whether you see it as something that should simply do good regardless of the rules.

Doctors Without Borders or the Peace Corps don't go into other countries and tell them how to run things. In fact, if a country doesn't want them they don't go in at all. So your analogy doesn't really work, since superheroes are all about doing what's right damn the protocol. We forgive them this because, since they're the good guys, their "right" is right. But looking at the idea of the superhero realistically (always a bad idea) they're really nothing more than unregulated violence prone zealots.

Or to put in another, simpler way:

In the real world, Iron Man would have been right.