In so many areas, issue-oriented interests have taken their fights beyond their own countries and are challenging international agreements and institutions because of what they view as the overriding importance of their own concerns. In some cases this extension of an issue to a hypernational concern is inevitable. Once one accepts, for example, that ozone depletion is a legitimate danger, then it hardly makes sense to confine one's attempts to solve the problem to a single country. Intrinsically, global problems require global solutions. However there are many other issues that are not intrinsically global in this sense, but that have nonetheless been taken to be global by their advocates.
Human rights provides a most obvious example.
There are humans everywhere on earth, of course, but it is at least possible to secure rights for some of them without elevating the rights of others, something that cannot be done with ozone depletion. Similarly, in the area of environment, air quality can be improved in one country, or even one locality, without necessarily improving it world-wide. Nonetheless, I suspect that many environmentalists would be loath to accept air quality as only a local concern, and I am sure that advocates of human rights would view it as immoral to press for those rights in less than the entire world. Thus hypernationalists are international in the sense that they reject the right of a nation, their own or any other, to interfere with their concerns. Hypernationalists tend, as Professor Cohen has pointed out, to reject the sovereignty of nations as a legitimate obstacle to achieving their objectives, and they will work around and above nations, as well as through them, to achieve their international goals.