When the UN was forming, it was thought to be desirable to have the largest powers at the table. Neither the UK, the US, the USSR nor France would have participated without veto power. None would have or will participate if a vote of the general assembly were binding upon them. The UN is mechanism for dispute resolution, not a world government. The UN is just a place where countries can talk and make deals.

Should Trinidad have exactly the same voice as China? Should ten little countries in the Carribean have ten times the voice that Britain does? Who's army would enforce a resolution against a Nato power, China or Russia without starting world war three? UN permission is desirable but not required. Should all resolutions be enforced? I would say actually no. Most resolutions are a statement of what the UN wants, not what it is prepared to or able to enforce. Israel/Palestine is a mess, a mess made by Britain and endorced by the UN. Make no mistake, the UN would have never created Israel if Britian had been against it. The UN is not equipped to clean up that mess, the only country with the means to do so is the US. UN resolutions don't mean squat if they aren't backed by real governments with real militaries.