the death of national autonomy?

i've listened and read many of the screeds bandied about regarding the role our country should be playing in the global arena. most of the opinions have ranged from "we should give up all sovereignty, and join the international community" to "get the hell out of the united nations". i fall somewhere in the middle, thinking that while we should not in any way abrogate our national identity and independence, there is a place for international organizations. while it may not be the united nations, some sort of medium to establish an international dialog needs to exist. but when international organizations like the world trade organization (WTO) impose sanctions against our country's exports, it's time to sit back and say "WHOA THERE NELLY". exactly how is it in our interest to allow the WTO, a non-elected international assembly, to override our congressionally passed laws? the law in question was passed to permit our government to take action against "dumping" practices that drive down prices to eliminate competitors. that a country has a standard of living that permits their manufacturing corporations to pay pennies to it's workers is not my concern. what is my concern is that countries like china or any other for that matter, that is capable of unloading massive quantities of goods on our markets at unbelievably cheap prices, does in fact impact us all. i'm all for cheap goods, don't get me wrong. but when these countries get together and come up with stuff like this, yet they impose the same sorts of policies in their own countries against american goods, i have to call foul. look at japan. they've had protectionist laws in place for years to help their farmers. ok. but don't then expect us to open our markets to your goods without some similar actions.
further signs our sovereignty is in jeopardy come from within our own government. i am drawing a blank on the specifics of a ruling by the supreme court, but they made a decision not too long ago that was counter to the constitution, citing instead "international" standards. that is NOT their charter. they exist solely to rule on the constitutionality of suits brought before them, not to pull in some obscure ruling from another country to use as a basis. hell in a handbasket, and it's a damned big basket.