CC BY
0УДК 341.1 Shaliyev M., Nurmyradov Sh., Ashyrova Z.
Shaliyev M.
Student
International University for the Humanities and Development (Ashgabay, Turkmenistan)
Nurmyradov Sh.
Student
International University for the Humanities and Development (Ashgabay, Turkmenistan)
Ashyrova Z.
Student
International University for the Humanities and Development (Ashgabay, Turkmenistan)
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND MODERN CHALLENGES
Аннотация: this article examines the evolution of the principle of sovereignty in international law, from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to modern international relations. Examines how historical events and legal precedents have shaped the concept of state sovereignty, and examines contemporary challenges such as humanitarian interventions, globalization, and the responsibility to protect (R2P). It is discussed how the perception of sovereignty has changed under the influence of the development of international organizations and human rights.
Ключевые слова: sovereignty, international law, Peace of Westphalia, history, humanitarian interventions, globalization, UN, human rights.
The principle of sovereignty has been a cornerstone of international law since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War in Europe and established the framework for modern statehood. Sovereignty, defined as the supreme authority within a territory, provided the legal foundation for the nationstate system, where each state had the autonomy to govern itself without external interference. This principle was crucial for maintaining international order and peace, as it recognized the equal status of states regardless of their size or power.
Historically, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty emphasized the inviolability of borders and the non-interference in the domestic affairs of states. This principle was reinforced by the Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, which enshrined the idea that states are the primary actors in international relations and are entitled to conduct their affairs without external intervention. This model of sovereignty dominated international relations for centuries, providing stability in an era marked by the formation and consolidation of nation-states.
However, the evolution of international law and the emergence of new global challenges have led to significant modifications in the understanding and application of sovereignty. The two World Wars in the first half of the 20th century revealed the limitations of absolute sovereignty, particularly when states committed egregious violations of human rights. The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 marked a turning point, as the UN Charter sought to balance state sovereignty with the promotion of peace, security, and human rights.
The principle of sovereignty began to evolve with the development of international human rights law, which posited that the protection of individual rights transcends national borders. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and subsequent international treaties underscored the responsibility of states to protect the rights of their citizens. This shift signified that sovereignty could no longer be an absolute shield against external scrutiny or intervention when states failed to uphold basic human rights.
The concept of humanitarian intervention emerged as a contentious issue in the post-Cold War era, particularly in response to mass atrocities and genocides. The
interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Rwanda (1994) highlighted the international community's moral imperative to act when states were either unwilling or unable to prevent gross human rights violations. These interventions, often conducted without explicit authorization from the UN Security Council, challenged traditional notions of sovereignty and underscored the need for a more flexible understanding of state responsibility.
In 2005, the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was adopted at the UN World Summit, further refining the concept of sovereignty. R2P posits that states have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state fails to fulfill this responsibility, the international community, through the UN, has the obligation to intervene, using diplomatic, humanitarian, and, as a last resort, military means. R2P represents a significant evolution in the principle of sovereignty, emphasizing that state sovereignty entails responsibility and accountability to the international community.
The 21st century has introduced new challenges that continue to reshape the principle of sovereignty. Globalization has interconnected states economically, politically, and socially, making unilateral decision-making less feasible and highlighting the interdependence of nations. Issues such as climate change, transnational terrorism, and pandemics like COVID-19 demonstrate that no state can address these challenges in isolation. Consequently, sovereignty increasingly involves cooperative governance and adherence to international norms and agreements.
Despite these advancements, the application of the evolving principle of sovereignty faces significant challenges. The principle of non-intervention remains deeply embedded in international law, and any breach of this principle can lead to geopolitical tensions and accusations of imperialism. The interventions in Libya (2011) and Syria illustrate the complexities and controversies surrounding humanitarian interventions and R2P. Critics argue that such interventions often serve
the geopolitical interests of powerful states rather than genuine humanitarian concerns.
Moreover, the rise of populism and nationalist movements in recent years has sparked debates about the limits of global governance and the reassertion of traditional sovereignty. These movements often emphasize state sovereignty and the primacy of national interests, challenging international institutions and norms. This resurgence of nationalism poses a potential setback for the progressive interpretation of sovereignty that accommodates global cooperation and human rights protection.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ:
1. Bellamy, Alex J. Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities. Polity Press, 2009;
2. Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press, 1977;
3. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press, 2000
