Whilst I obviously understand the distaste for military intervention of any sort (external and internal), ultimately the question does come down to a choice of whether interventions are for essentially imperialist reasons (e.g., Indonesia in West Papua, China in Tibet, & etc) or whether the cause of universal human rights is of consideration (e.g., Interfet in Timor-Leste).

Obviously these cases can be somewhat mixed (e.g., Libya, perhaps IFOR in Bosnia) and in the fog of war who is right and wrong is likewise mixed in varying proportions. Nevertheless in an increasingly globalised world I find it implausible to suggest that the state sovereignty argument has a lasting justification for inaction when states fail to protect human rights or even carry out atrocities themselves.