Foreign Affairs
English
Submit an article
Back to Issue: No.6, 2025

Normative significance of the principle of non-intervention in contemporary international law

Sadjola Xhelili

Abstract

The principle of non-intervention acquires particular relevance in the context of the transformation of international relations under the influence of hybrid threats, digital challenges, and growing tension between state sovereignty and international imperatives. The aim of the research was to analyse the transformation of the legal content of the principle of non-intervention, its normative consolidation, and practical application under modern threats, in particular in digital, humanitarian, and security dimensions. The methodology of the research was based on system- structural analysis, methods of legal hermeneutics, comparative jurisprudence, and the case method with elements of legal qualification. The results of the research confirmed that the principle of non-intervention underwent an evolution from a moral-political postulate to a clearly codified norm, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration, and the resolutions of the General Assembly. In the case of Nicaragua v. USA, the principle of non-intervention was for the first time interpreted as a norm that prohibited not only armed but also indirect forms of intervention. In the case of Ukraine v. Russia, systematic violations of state sovereignty through military aggression, political pressure, economic expansion, and informational operations were established. Emphasis was placed on the Ukrainian case as a comprehensive example of multi-level intervention, encompassing classical aggression, cyber operations, and interference in elections. The analysis of digital sovereignty, in particular through acts of the European Union, demonstrated that international law lacked a harmonised approach to the protection of states from the transnational influence of digital platforms. A tendency was revealed towards revising the boundaries of permissible intervention in cases of humanitarian catastrophes, which required alignment with the principle of sovereignty. The research demonstrated the need to update normative standards and strengthen mechanisms of accountability for the violation of this principle. The practical significance of the research lay in the use of its findings for the preparation of amendments to international treaties and procedures regulating the limits of permissible intervention and the protection of state sovereignty under modern threats

Keywords

collective security; cybersecurity; hybrid war; sovereignty; intervention

References

  1. Adamu, A.N.V. (2023). The applicability of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect during armed conflicts: Russia-Ukraine war in focus. American Journal of Law and Political Science, 2(1), 1-18. doi: 10.58425/ajlps.v2i1.111.
  2. African Union. (1981). African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Retrieved from https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights.
  3. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments”. (1998, November). Retrieved from https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/treaty/en-agreement-between-the-governement-of-the-russian-federation-and-the-cabinet-of-ministers-of-the-ukraine-on-the-encouragement-and-mutual-protection-of-investments-russian-federation-ukraine-bit-1998-friday-27th-november-1998.
  4. Ahmadi, S.S., Lotfizadeh, A., & Jafari Pabandi, S.F. (2021). The necessity of reviewing the principle of non-intervention in the light of emerging human rights norms. International Studies Journal, 18(3), 143-164. doi: 10.22034/isj.2022.314124.1657.
  5. Ali, S.H., & Al-Khuzaie, S. (2024). National sovereignty in light of international intervention. In 3rd international humanitarian conference (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 212-223). Baghdad: Al Hikma University College. doi: 10.70516/zaccsssh.v1i1.41.
  6. Anyaebechi, S.M. (2024). Libyan uprising, human rights violations and the doctrine of the responsibility to protect: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Political Science and Leadership Research, 10(5), 64-88. doi: 10.56201/jpslr.v10.no5.2024.pg64.88.
  7. Arribas, G.F., & Wessel, R.A. (2023). Promoting the rule of law through EU external relations and the principle of non-intervention under international law. In L.M. Hinojosa-Martínez & C. Pérez-Bernárdez (Eds.), Enhancing the rule of law in the European Union’s external action (pp. 41-62). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781035312320.00012.
  8. Babarykina, N.A., Gorlo, N.V., Zabolotna, M.F., Kindratets, O.M., & Sergienko, T.I. (2022). State sovereignty in the context of globalization: Theory and practice. Zaporizhzhia: ZNU.
  9. Bajrami, H. (2023). The influence and role of NATO in the creation of the state of Kosovo. Justicia – International Journal of Legal Sciences, 11(19-20), 134-141.
  10. Carmichael, E., & Anderson, Q. (2021). The First Gulf War: Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (17 January – 28 February 1991). British Dental Journal, 230, 435-443. doi: 10.1038/s41415-021-2733-5.
  11. Carty, A. (2024). Legal doctrine, the principle of non-intervention and the practice of States. In The decay of international law (pp. 135-159). Manchester: Manchester University Press. doi: 10.7765/9781526183842.00012.
  12. Chesterman, S. (2023). Humanitarian intervention and R2P. In T.G. Weiss & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), International organization and global governance (pp. 564-576). London: Routledge.
  13. Chiarella, M.L. (2023). Digital markets act (DMA) and digital services act (DSA): New rules for the EU digital environment. Athens Journal of Law, 9(1), 33-58. doi: 10.30958/ajl.9-1-2.
  14. Claire, K. (2024). Examination of the legal and institutional framework relating to United Nations peacekeeping operations in South Sudan. (Master’s dissertation, Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda).
  15. Crawford, J. (2001). Articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/rsiwa/rsiwa.html.
  16. Democracy Story Unit. (2024). Big Tech Narrative Initiative. Retrieved from https://democracystoryunit.org/big-tech/.
  17. Deng, L. (2023). ICJ’s mechanism to improve the regularity and accountability of its jurisdiction practices: A reflection on the case of Nicaragua vs United States in 1986. Advances in Education, Humanities and Social Science Research, 4(1), 305-309. doi: 10.56028/aehssr.4.1.305.2023.
  18. Dogaru, M. (2024). Fundamental principles of international law. Jurnalul de Drept si Stiinte Administrative, 1(21), 120-142.
  19. European Commission. (n.d.a). Digital Markets Act. Retrieved from https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en.
  20. European Commission. (n.d.b). The Digital Services Act. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en.
  21. European Court of Human Rights. (2024). Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-14347%22]}.
  22. Filonenko, I.S. (2025). International legal responsibility for military attacks on civilian objects. (Bachelor’s paper, Sumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine).
  23. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). What is R2P? Retrieved from https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/.
  24. Hensley, D.J., Greer, T.P. & Fischer, E.S. (2024). The conflict between humanitarian intervention and the principle of non-intervention in article 2(7) of the UN Charter. Studies in Law and Justice, 3(4), 14-19.
  25. Houghton, K.A. (2024). The competition over norms: The case of the Syrian conflict. In B. Houghton & K.A. Houghton (Eds.), China, Russia, and the USA in the Middle East (pp. 47-64). London: Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781003372011-6.
  26. Hüsch, P.K. (2023). State sovereignty in the 21st century: Low-intensity cyber operations and the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. (Doctoral thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland). doi: 10.5525/gla.thesis.83668.
  27. International Centre for Migration Policy Development. (n.d.). History of the dialogue. Retrieved from https://www.budapestprocess.org/budapest-process/the-history/.
  28. International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/en.
  29. International Law Commission. (2001). Responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf.
  30. Jemirade, D. (2020). Humanitarian intervention (HI) and the responsibility to protect (R2P): The United Nations and international security. African Security Review, 30(1), 48-65. doi: 10.1080/10246029.2020.1847153.
  31. Karami, M., Zandi, R., & Givkey, A. (2024). Ukraine situation from the perspective of international criminal law: ICC and beyond. Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2(1), 41-54. doi: 10.22091/ijicl.2023.9852.1075.
  32. Kilovaty, I. (2021). The international law of cyber intervention. In N. Tsagourias & R. Buchan (Eds.), Research handbook on international law and cyberspace (pp. 97-112). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781789904253.00014.
  33. Longobardo, M., & Wallace, S. (2022). The 2021 ECtHR decision in Georgia v Russia (II) and the application of human rights law to extraterritorial hostilities. Israel Law Review, 55(2), 145-177. doi: 10.1017/S002122372100026.
  34. Marukhovska-Kartunova, O., Bozhkov, A., Romanchuk, V., Bazov, O., Grytsyshen, D., & Opanasiuk, V. (2024). International law (SDG'S): Regulation of conflicts and international relations. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 4(1), article number e01667. doi: 10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v4.n00.pe01667.
  35. Niemann, H. (2022). UN Security Council and international interventions. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of peace and conflict studies (pp. 1564-1574). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1080/714003751.
  36. Ogunbanjo, B. (2021). Human rights and humanitarian intervention in a changing world. Humanus Discourse, 2(1).
  37. OHCHR. (n.d.). Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/iicihr-ukraine/index.
  38. OSCE. (1990). Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE. Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304.
  39. OSCE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/.
  40. Permanent Court of Arbitration. (n.d.). Everest Estate LLC et al. v. the Russian Federation. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/133/.
  41. Pijpers, B.P. (2025). Disinformation in cyberspace: Principles of sovereignty and non-intervention under international law. The Military Law and the Law of War Review, 63(1), 52-72. doi: 10.4337/mllwr.2025.02.03.
  42. Piskun, I., & Dudnik, I. (2022). Application of rules of international humanitarian law in international peace and security operations. Scientific Works of Kyiv Aviation Institute. Series Law Journal “Air and Space Law”, 1(62), 76-84. doi: 10.18372/2307-9061.62.16485.
  43. Roscini, M. (2024). International law and the principle of non-intervention: History, theory, and interactions with other principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198786894.001.0001.
  44. Saaida, M. (2023). Digital sovereignty. Science for All Publications, 6(1), 1-12. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10871334.
  45. Şener, M.B. (2021). Evaluation of NATO intervention in Kosovo by criteria of responsibility to protect. Journal of International Relations and Political Science Studies, 2, 38-59.
  46. Soleymani Nezhad, N., Mojtahedi, M., & Bandehali, F. (2023). Semantics of the principle of non-intervention from the perspective of this concept interactions with other fundamental principles of international law. “Adl va Ensaf” Comparative Law Researches Quarterly, 6(22), 40-60. doi: 10.22034/aeclr.2024.418381.1128.
  47. Streltsova, Y.D. (2022). Interaction of international and domestic law: Some reflections on the issue of compliance of Ukrainian law with the international legal obligations of Ukraine. Legal Position, 4(37), 225-231. doi: 10.32782/2521-6473.2022-4.42.
  48. Stützel, M., & Voeneky, S. (2022). Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands v. Russia). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3820416.
  49. Taran, O., & Hryha, M. (2024). Application of international humanitarian law by the European Court of Human Rights. Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 29(2), 9-17. doi: 10.56215/naia-herald/2.2024.09.
  50. Tay, X.W. (2022). Reconstructing the principle of non-intervention and non-interference-electoral disinformation, Nicaragua, and the quilt-work approach. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 40(1), 39-94.
  51. Trashani, A. (2021). Humanitarian intervention and its impact on state sovereignty and human rights. In M. Belov (Ed.), Territorial politics and secession: Constitutional and international law dimensions (pp. 103-125). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-64402-4_6.
  52. Tsagourias, N. (2024). The use of force against terrorist attacks: The two facets of self-defence. The Saint Louis University Law Journal, 68(2), 327-348.
  53. United Nations General Assembly. (1965). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial.
  54. United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202170?ln=en&v=pdf.
  55. United Nations General Assembly. (2022a). Aggression against Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-res-es-11-1.php.
  56. United Nations General Assembly. (2022b). Humanitarian consequences of the aggression against Ukraine. Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-11/2.
  57. United Nations General Assembly. (2023). Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-res-es-11-6.php.
  58. United Nations Security Council. (1990). Resolution 678 (1990). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/102245?v=pdf.
  59. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.
  60. United Nations. (1948). Charter of the Organization of American States. Retrieved from https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/0E587B2690D6482E852569FA00001A00.
  61. United Nations. (1981). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/27066?ln=en&v=pdf.
  62. United Nations. (1999). International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1999%20International%20Convention%20for%20the%20Suppression%20of%20the%20Financing%20of%20Terrorism.pdf.
  63. United Nations. (2021). Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3934214?v=pdf&ln=en.
  64. United Nations. (n.d.). World Summit, 14-16 September 2005, New York. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/newyork2005.
  65. Vićić, J., & Gartzke, E. (2024). Cyber-enabled influence operations as a “center of gravity” in cyberconflict: The example of Russian foreign interference in the 2016 US federal election. Journal of Peace Research, 61(1), 10-27. doi: 10.1177/00223433231225814.
  66. Walling, C.B. (2015). Human rights norms, state sovereignty, and humanitarian intervention. Human Rights Quarterly, 37(2), 383-413. doi: 10.1353/hrq.2015.0034.
  67. Willmer, L. (2023). Does digitalization reshape the principle of non-intervention? German Law Journal, 24(3), 508-521. doi: 10.1017/glj.2023.27.
  68. Zugliani, N. (2021). The evolving role of state sovereignty in the international investment regime. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy).

Suggested citation

Xhelili, S. (2025). Normative significance of the principle of non-intervention in contemporary international law. Foreign Affairs, 35(6), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/6.2025.42
English
Submit an article