Increased global communication, intercultural contact, and economic and political interdependence have made human rights violations and their repercussions on international peace and security ever-more apparent (Twiss 2004). This has had the impact of fostering an emergent, revisioned role of collective state intervention not originally anticipated by the drafters of the UDHR. This revisioned role was augmented most directly by the end of the Cold War, which had restrained the political feasibility of humanitarian intervention. After the war, a liberal conception of state sovereigntycomplete and exclusive control of all the people and property within a territory — wherein states are explicitly constrained by international human rights conventions — began to supplant the classical, Westphalian conception of non-intervention except in cases threatening to international peace and security (Twiss 2004). Under this revised conception of sovereigntycomplete and exclusive control of all the people and property within a territory, egregious human rights abuses are no longer regarded by the international community as purely domestic affairs.