Is a new UN “principle” now guiding US foreign policy and intervention?

"If we let one ant stand up to us, then the other ants, who outnumber us 100 to 1, will all stand up to us. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life... It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line."
-- Hopper in A Bug's Life (1998)
===================================================================

.........what does agreeing with this “principle” mean in the future?

Do we intervene in Sudan or the Congo? Ivory Coast? And if not, why not? None of them, like Libya, put our core national interests at stake. But all certainly fit the new R2P principle. How about Bahrain and Yemen? Nepal?

Instead, what we see here is precisely what the left has decried for years – the US along with others who can afford it and are willing to do it –agreeing to police the world. However, in this case, it would be at the behest of the UN. We are agreeing that the UN can determine when and where we commit our military forces simply by invoking this principle. Invoke R2P and, by our precedent in Libya, we agree to respond.

This is far and away different than case by case agreements among member nations to intervene with peace keeping troops in troubled areas around the world. This is a “principle” that Moon says is a “new international security and human rights norm” apparently is interpreted as a “right” to intervene with military force.

Funny – I don’t remember us agreeing to this “new norm”, do you?