This thesis focuses on the evolution of human rights as a principal reason for international humanitarian intervention and the erosion of nation-state sovereignty. I examine the traditional state-centric concepts of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention and argue that they are outmoded in that they ignore the fact that legitimate state authority derives from the individuals within the nation-state. When this occurs, it may be that only the global community can be competent to respond to this breach. In addition, the international community might have other interests, such as severe threats to global peace or the environment, which would infringe upon state authority from above. Thus, I argue for a reconstructed notion of intervention which recognises individual rights and global interests, and the obligations nation- states have in responding to these rights and interests. That is, any claim to any part of the authority and power associated with sovereignty must include respect for individual rights and interests, as well as a recognition that those claims cannot be : nearly as absolute as traditional definitions of sovereignty have maintained.
James Earl Munn (1996) studied this question.