That isnt really true, as most examples of what the UN does show. Conventions on all kinds of issues that are ratified are things that member states are technically obligated to adhere to, there just are few effective mechanisms to enforce them into it.

The international criminal court is probably the foremost example. A member state is not free to commit war crimes just because they want to, and all states are obligated to abide by the Geneva convention or face consequences for it. Although that is a convention that determines interactions between sovereign states, not interior issues.

But human rights conventions are also a similar obligation that member states are supposed to adhere to, and the UN is certainly capable of attempting to force member states to abide by them. Its just rarely effective. For example, the US refused to ratify conventions on labor organization rights over 70 years ago, and is obligated every year to answer to the UN why US citizens dont have those rights. In practice this means that every year the US tells the UN “because we dont want to give people those rights, our rights are good enough even if below standard” and then the UN can basically do fuck all about it simply because no one is going to go force the US government to comply. And since 99.9% of US citizens dont know or care that they lack labor rights that are considered human rights by the rest of the world there is no internal pressure. So the UN just has to let it go.

But that doesnt mean that on a technical basis that the UN doesnt have the authority to say the US is out of compliance when it is. And it doesnt mean that US sovereignty overrides international convention. It just means that in practice the US can flaunt international regulations on human rights. As do many other countries like Russia and China. The obligation exists, its just ignored

The purpose is to create a space for nations to talk to each other, and to organize collective action on issues that the majority of members agree on.

Save for anything the USA says "nope", like actual action against climate change, putting an end to the trade blockade against Cuba, etc - then the majority can go fuck itself

I agree but thr ICJ always acknowledge genocides too late.

I disagree, the League of Nations was set up after WW1 with the specific aim of preventing another world war, their stated mission was to "maintain world peace".

The League of Nations was absorbed into the United Nations, disbanding entirely in 1946, and the primary United Nations stated mission is again to "maintain world peace".

So its specifically been created as a reaction to World War 2, and its forebear in reaction to WW2 - its goal has always been to maintain peace and prevent wars.

Its entirely fair for presidents/world leaders to call it out as increasingly ineffective in that goal, especially considering one of its founding 'four powers' (Russia, who maintains the membership powers of former USSR) is in the midst of a two year war of aggression with a neighbouring country. And two of the other founding powers (US and China) are frequently provoking war by attacking their neighbours. Their core mission is in shambles.

I believe Brazil basically supports russian occupation of Ukrainian territories (and extermination of Ukrainian citizens, language and culture).

Not really. It's an alliance of rising imperial forces against the Americans dollar with the goal of creating a multipolar world, but I wouldn't say that's inherently more stable than one very powerful empire dominating everything. If anything, the neoliberalism mandated by global capitalism America championed is why the world became so unstable.

The extreme inequality causes artificial scarcity which drives people towards extreme nationalist ideologies. The increased nationalism that makes countries like China, Russia, and India more dangerous is thanks to that global economic system which encourages the worst in humanity. Local efforts at controlling capital are inherently undermined by it, as economic incentives demand fewer protections to compete with the rest of the world.

BRICS isn't responsible for that, and if anything the deepening of economic ties between these empires will encourage them to seek peace with each other. As America becomes less and less relevant, the old tensions between those countries might cause it to collapse, but that won't be the fault of it. Rather than it increasing or decreasing stability, it's just a symptom of change rather than a driving force.

for me, as a latin American BRICS is our only hope.

BRICS is trying to offer us third worlders an alternative to eternally swallowing the United States' boots, you mean.