A country's rights could only pre prejudiced if it it has those rights in the first place, Having signed up not to make war except in line with the Charter of the United Nations means that a country has no right to make war except in consistence with that charter's provisions.

Shooting at hostile aircraft flying over your country cannot constitute a hostile attack on the country carrying out those overflights. The no-fly zones do not actually appear to have any legal status.

An ingenious argument that is, which Jack the Sailor makes about an act not being illegal unless the Security Council votes that it is, which would means that nothing that a country prepared to use its veto can ever be illegal.

I don't actually thing it stands up. A country ready to use its veto can of course stop the UN doing anything about it, but that's always been the case. However the body which has the right to determine the legality of a country's actions wouldn't be the Security Council, it'd be the International Court, or in certain cases the International War Crimes Tribunal.

You may recall that the International Court was able to determine that when the USA mined waters off Nicaragua some years ago, it was acting illegally. Of course the USA didn't take any notice of the judgement, but that is another matter. (The term "rogue state" is perhaps relevant here.)