Theoretically any resolution can be removed with this sole argument. For this reason, repeals require unique arguments tailored to the target resolution. NatSov may be used as an additional unique argument but it cannot take over the repeal. Its variations include cultural and religious sovereignty.
The NatSov only rule is one of a few rules -- other than Committee-Only and possibly Branding -- that seems to just be "babysitting" the WA to not passing certain resolutions that are sometimes problematic and/or useless. However, there are genuinely cases where a NatSov argument would be a legitimate argument to repeal a resolution -- for example, if the World Assembly passed an otherwise-flawless resolution requiring member nations to distribute onion futures to all their citizens, it would be perfectly legitimate to argue that nations should be able to decide what policy to take towards onion futures within their nation.
Whether some argument is strong or weak as reason to repeal a resolution is a political question that should be left up to the voters, rather than an antiquated rule based on an incorrect assumption that NatSov is necessarily a poor argument. Further, the chance of everything being repealed because voters think that it isn't "international" in scope is near-zero, and there is no need for an excessively obstructive rule to stop some fantastical possibility most voters are better than. Nobody is going to argue that because onion futures are not a matter of international concern, matters such as genocide and war crimes also cannot be of international concern.
Even if one were to argue that NatSov-only is never a strong argument so it should be disallowed by the rules, it is trivial to avoid. Including some nitpick with absolutely no effect or an irrelevant "argument" not even intended to persuade people that the target is bad is sufficient to avoid the rule -- making it toothless, and redundant. That kind of writing is not something that the rules should coerce.
There is no real benefit to the rule, which relies on a poor assumption that NatSov is necessarily a weak argument, while being trivial to avoid. Leave it up to the voters to decide whether something is weak or strong as an argument to repeal a resolution.
Discuss.