When dealing with human rights violations, it is always about power. Some leader of a group of people doesn't like another group of people. He exerts his power onto the people that he doesn't like in the form of violence. The only way such a person can be stopped is through violence. Arguments can be made about negotiations and counseling that do not involved violence. These take time, and the violence continues during these methods. Matching violence stops it.
If a government can kill its citizens without due process of law and does not protect their rights, it is also a government unaccountable to its people. A government willing to butcher its own people will not spontaneously grow concern for the citizens of other nations. While using military force against every human rights violation is imprudent and impractical, there is no reason that it cannot be justified. (e.g. Syria, Rwanda, etc.)
Although it sounds contradictory at first, you have to realize the element you're dealing with. They only understand force, pain, and harm. Once you get it through their heads that upholding human rights will not result in foreign intervention bringing pain into their lives, they become very cooperate. So at first, yes, force is needed for human rights protection.
In an ideal world, America and their countries could use force to protect human rights in other countries. But unfortunately that is not possible. America or any other country does not have the resources to enforce human rights all around the world. There are many countries that have human rights abuses.
I do not believe force should be used to protect human rights in foreign countries. The question supposes a third party getting involved with other countries issues simply because human rights are not protected. I believe if this was the rule of thumb other countries would have to get involved in conflicts far too often.