Princess Diana favoured the nation state, and the world order of nation states. Opponents of landmines could, in theory, declare an independent mine-free state, and then go to war against the existing states. But entirely new states, based on new beliefs or principles, are rare. If the aim is to stop landmines, a new state is probably a faster way to achieve that, at least somewhere on earth. The victims of landmines were, like the victims of leprosy treated by another of her favourite charities , primarily an object of English paternalist racism.
Many people have a similar attitude to the world order.
Post-Dayton Sarajevo, for instance, attracted several hundred NGO's, charities, relief missions, and international organisations. There is no doubt that Diana had such a hierarchy of values. The existing world order is not a neutral means, for instance to help children crippled by mines. A world order of nation states can never be neutral. In fact, because it claims to override morality, it can not itself be moral.