The Jan-Feb 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs has an excellent article by Michael Chertoff, The Responsibility to Contain: Protecting Sovereignty Under International Law, which you will find here. This is a policy article, not a technical I Law thesis.

The primary issue which Chertoff addresses is this one:

SOVEREIGNTY RECIPROCATED

What should the international community do when global threats originate entirely within a state that does not consent to reciprocal international security obligations? This can occur when, for example, a nation fails to enact adequate domestic security measures or is simply unable to control terrorists or other criminals within a particular region. These situations present truly hard cases because they place the international community's security interests in conflict with a nation's right to control its internal matters. But states can no longer refuse to act by hiding behind seventeenth-century concepts of sovereignty in a world of twenty-first-century dangers. International law should not be powerless to prevent deadly nonstate threats from spreading from one state to others. If it is, the sovereignty of all nations will be sacrificed to preserve the sovereignty of one.

Therefore, international law must be updated to reflect the reciprocal nature of sovereignty in the modern era. .....
The challenge is to adapt I Law to deal with "white spaces" (ungoverned areas), which harbor bad guys - and the right to employ Article 51 to root them out. Obviously, the issues raised in this article are relevant to Astan, Pashtunistan and Pakistan - as well as Somalia, etc., etc.

Chertoff does have a background in I Law (with the Latham law firm) - see bios here, here and here. Also he is a Harvard Law grad.

I'd be interested in comments from non-lawyers on Chertoff's proposals.