Justice and Politics in World Order

To what extent is the maintenance of international order between states undermined by the defence or protection of international human rights?

Firstly, I'd like to point out the negative connotation within the question. In the Toonen Case, the maintenance of international order was upheld, rather than undermined, due to the protection of human rights. In this case, Tasmania, Australia, was ordered by federal courts to abolish the criminalization of homosexuality by citing the HRC. (Human Rights Committee)
That having been said, there are countless examples of nations ignoring grave breaches of human rights in order to maintain international trade. One such example that comes to mind is that of Wal-Mart's relationship with China. Under American law, Wal-Mart could be prevented from such explicit trade with China. However, despite American recognition of China's violations of human rights, Wal-Mart continues trade, to such a degree they are in fact China's largest exporting customer.
However, human rights violations rarely disrupt the facilitation of international trade
and commerce. Such human right violations, from a eurocentric view, include honor killings, genital mutilations, rape, censorship, and religious persecution.
Until 'erga omnes' in regards to human rights is felt, violations will be ignored. An example of this feeling succeeding in the consciousness of nations is in the Velasquez Rodriquez Case, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated Article 1 of the American Convention creates an obligation on states to investigate and punish violations of human rights, but to also prevent them.
There are three steps for this universal feeling of obligation:
opinio juries ---> jus cogens -----> erga omnes