How It's Made

The U.N.’s rules were explicitly designed to prevent a repeat of the second world war’s horrors, from genocidal nationalism to might-makes-right acts of aggression.
China goes on the offensive over human rights

I've always been dubious about the idea that might does not, in fact, make right. Mainly because I have yet to see a system that successfully counters it without appearing to rely simply on greater might. This, of course, is guided by the nihilistic idea that ethics and morality are human constructions, rather than being some sort of transcendent Universal property of existence. (I am a nihilist, not in the sense that I believe that "nothing matters," but because I believe that things matter because they have been chosen, by some subset of humanity, to matter.)

The reason why the United Nations has been unable to prevent repeats of genocidal nationalism and might-makes-right acts of aggression is that its rules, explicit or otherwise, are not self-enforcing, so someone has to be willing to deploy force in order to uphold its mandates. And there are nations, like Russia and China, to name the ones that "the West" tends to be stereotypically concerned with, that have the ability to say, "I'll see your intervention force, and raise you nuclear missiles." Additionally, Russia exports crucial energy supplies to European nations and China does much of the world's low-cost manufacturing. This gives them the ability to engage in a certain level of military adventurism (much as the United States is often accused of doing), should they so choose, without needing to worry too much about the consequences. Similarly, when it comes to "respecting human rights," the powerful nations of the world (again, including the United States) have always been able to respond to "demands" from other nations for compliance with "who's going to make me?"

Whether one believes that intervention in the actions of other nations, whether they cross borders or not, are driven by principles or interests, either way, the general pattern is that some sort of coercion tends to be brought to bear. Whether that's economic sanctions or something more heated, it's considered a deployment of national might. Even if a nation consistently acts in accordance with some definable set of principles, without the ability to project force, they would be unable to effect change on the international stage. So whether or not might makes right, might is often the only real means of enforcement. And to the degree that nations are inconsistent in the applications of their stated principles, to all appearances, the world operates on nations using might to further their interests... and then complaining when other nations do the same. Not that I'm a believer in whataboutism or only the perfect being able to criticize. After all, a drinker can hold forth on the perils of alcohol just as easily as a teetotaler. Referencing principles without seeming to act on them, however, simply paints the target on one's own forehead.