Foreign Affairs
English
Submit an article
Back to Issue: No.1, 2026

Humanitarian law as a space for competition among global ideologies: Between universalism and sovereignty

Stepan Dmytrenko , Oksana Dmytrenko , Vilayat Ismayilov

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify how the ideological confrontation between universalism and sovereignty affects the effectiveness of international humanitarian law in protecting the civilian population. A comparative legal method was used to establish the differences between universalist and sovereignist interpretations of humanitarian norms. A structural-functional analysis revealed the ambivalence of the United Nations Charter regarding human rights and non-interference. The historical method traces the evolution of the Responsibility to Protect. Case studies of Libya, Syria and Myanmar show the selectivity of universalism and sovereign resistance through reservations, “soft law” and regional mechanisms. The study revealed the structural ambivalence of the United Nations Charter, which simultaneously proclaims universal human rights and categorically prohibits interference in the internal affairs of states, creating a legal basis for selective interpretation of international norms. An analysis of the practical application of the responsibility to protect doctrine has demonstrated fundamental selectivity through the contrast between military intervention in Libya and complete paralysis on Syria, where Russia has blocked seventeen resolutions since 2011, and the Russian-Chinese double veto blocked the referral of the Syrian case to the International Criminal Court despite the support of thirteen of the fifteen members of the Security Council. The systematisation of institutional mechanisms for circumventing universal obligations has revealed a three-stage architecture of sovereign resistance through mechanisms of reservations to international treaties, the application of soft law and the creation of regional alternatives, as exemplified by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Analysis of the Association’s activities has shown how the principles of non-interference and consensus decision-making effectively neutralise international standards, as evidenced by the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, which displaced more than 1.2 million people amid complete institutional silence from the ASEAN Human Rights Commission. The study found that ideological competition is multidimensional and includes the internal fragmentation of the universalist paradigm due to the emergence of alternative concepts, from Brazilian responsibility in protection to African non-indifference

Keywords

Responsibility to Protect; international institutions; geopolitical interests; “soft law”; multipolarity

References

  1. Aggression Against Ukraine: Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly. (2022, March). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3965290?ln=en&v=pdf.
  2. Agostinis, G., & Urdinez, F. (2022). The nexus between authoritarian and environmental regionalism: An analysis of China’s driving role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Problems of Post-Communism, 69(4-5), 330-344. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2021.1974887.
  3. Aidonojie, P.A., Agbale, O.P., Odojor, O.A., & Ikubanni, O.O. (2021). Human rights: Between universalism and cultural relativism. AJLHR, 5(1), 97-109.
  4. ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response. (2005, July). Retrieved from https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2005-ASEAN-Agreement-on-Disaster-Management-and-Emergency-Response-1.pdf.
  5. Balaban, O. (2024). Ontological dimension of universal as the category of humanitarian. LOGOS-A Journal of Religion, Philosophy, Comparative Cultural Studies and Art, 119, 31-38.
  6. Bellamy, A.J. (2004). Ethics and intervention: The “humanitarian exception” and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq. Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 131-147. doi: 10.1177/0022343304041777.
  7. Blokker, P. (2024). International law and populist critique. In Research handbook on international law and domestic legal systems (pp. 332-350). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781800373167.00025.
  8. Brannigan, A. (2008). Humanism and realism in international humanitarian law. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(1), 202-206. doi: 10.29173/cjs4544.
  9. Budiana, M. (2024). Human rights and international politics: From universalism to relativism. Journal of Law, Social Science and Humanities, 1(2), 188-203.
  10. Césaire, A. (1955). Discourse on colonialism. Paris: Présence Africaine.
  11. Charter of the Organization of African Unity. (1963, May). Retrieved from https://ulii.org/akn/aa-au/act/charter/1963/charter/eng@1963-05-25.
  12. Chemillier-Gendreau, M. (2025). The failure of international law to become universal, and the reasons for it. Federalist Debate, 38(1).
  13. Constitutive Act of the African Union. (2000). Retrieved from https://au.int/sites/default/files/pages/34873-file-constitutiveact_en.pdf.
  14. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Russian Federation. (1949, December). Retrieved from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/state-parties/RU.
  15. Cook, A.D. (2021). Humanitarian diplomacy in ASEAN. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 6(3), 188-201. doi: 10.1177/20578911211019247.
  16. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (1970, October). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202170?v=pdf.
  17. Drulák, P., Hlaváčková, H.N., & Zákravský, J. (2024). Roles, ideologies and positions. In Roles and ideologies in the Czech foreign policy: The case of European migration crisis (pp. 9-26). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-49975-3_2.
  18. Fassin, D. (2023). Afterword: Humanitarianism, between situated universality and interventionist universalism. Social Anthropology, 31(1), 103-105. doi: 10.3167/saas.2023.310108.
  19. France, accession to Protocol I. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/france-accession-protocol-i.
  20. Genser, J. (2018). The United Nations Security Council’s implementation of the Responsibility to Protect: A review of past interventions and recommendations for improvement. Chicago Journal of International Law, 18(2), article number 2.
  21. Ginsburg, T. (2020). Authoritarian international law? American Journal of International Law, 114(2), 221-260. doi:10.1017/ajil.2020.3.
  22. Hashem, M. (2004). Humanitarian intervention and its challenges to sovereignty. The Kosovo crisis. (Master`s thesis, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt).
  23. Hehir, A. (2013). The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect. International Security, 38(1), 137-159.
  24. Implementing the political declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas: Questions and answers. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.inew.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INEW_Implementation_QA_.pdf.
  25. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of The Secretary-General. (2009, January). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/647126?v=pdf.
  26. In Meeting Following Russian Federation’s Veto of Cross-Border Aid Text, General Assembly Speakers Highlight Humanitarian Consequences for Millions (Press Release GA/12517). (2023, July). Retrieved from https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12517.doc.htm.
  27. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966, December). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights.
  28. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966, December). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights.
  29. Jones, M. (2025). Athens vs. Sparta: The history of the Peloponnesian war. Retrieved from https://historycooperative.org/the-peloponnesian-war-athens-vs-sparta/.
  30. Kolmašová, Š. (2016). Inconsistencies between Libya and Syria? Pragmatic revisionism and the Responsibility to Protect. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 10(2), 10-32. 
  31. Letter dated 9 November 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. (2011, November). Retrieved from https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20S2011%20701.pdf.
  32. Lidén, K. (2020). Universality. In Humanitarianism (pp. 220-222). Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004431140_0102.
  33. Longhi, E.S. (2022). The father of “sovereignism”: d’Annunzio in Fiume between the crisis of liberalism and the critique of democracy. Modern Italy, 27(1), 35-47. doi: 10.1017/mit.2021.63.
  34. Marah, T.S. (2025). Humanitarian law and ASEAN: Analyzing regional commitment and humanitarian response mechanisms in Southeast Asia. Journal of Governance and Public Administration, 2(2), 495-511. doi: 10.70248/jogapa.v2i2.2128.
  35. Martinico, G. (2023). Sovereignty and illiberalism. Sant’anna Legal Studies. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4584135.
  36. Mihatsch, M., & Mulligan, M. (2025). Shifting sovereignties: A global history of a concept in practice. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. doi: 10.1515/9783111447117.
  37. Molthof, M. (2012). ASEAN and the principle of non-interference. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/08/asean-and-the-principle-of-non-interference/.
  38. Morris, J. (2013). Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum. International Affairs, 89(5), 1265-1283. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12071.
  39. Myanmar: No justice, no freedom for Rohingya 5 years on: Anniversary of atrocities highlights international inaction. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/24/myanmar-no-justice-no-freedom-rohingya-5-years.
  40. Naveed, M., & Javaid, F. (2021). Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization making a “NATO of the East”? Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 4(3), 599-615. doi: 10.52337/pjia.v4i3.265.
  41. Nollkaemper, A. (2011). Universality. In Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. O’Connell, M.E. (2010). Responsibility to Peace: A critique of R2P. Journal of Intervention & Statebuilding, 4(1), 39-52.
  43. Orford, A. (2011). International authority and the responsibility to protect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Raman, R., Arvind, L., Gupta, P., & Khanna, P. (2023). R2P: A comparative study: Between universalism and Asian exceptionalism. In The Indian yearbook of comparative law 2020 (pp. 219-245). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5467-4_11.
  45. Referral of Syria to International Criminal Court fails as Negative Votes Prevent Security Council from Adopting Draft Resolution (Press Release SC/11407). (2014, May). Retrieved from https://press.un.org/en/2014/sc11407.doc.htm.
  46. Regan, H. (2023). Myanmar junta travel restrictions are holding up vital aid to cyclone-hit communities. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/asia/cyclone-mocha-aid-restrictions-myanmar-intl-hnk/index.html.
  47. Resolution 1264. The India-Pakistan Question. (1957, December). Retrieved from http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1264.
  48. Resolution 1769 (2007)/Adopted by the Security Council at its 5727th Meeting, on 31 July 2007. (2007). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/604309?v=pdf.
  49. Resolution 1973 (2011)/Adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th Meeting, on 17 March 2011. (2011). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/699777?v=pdf.
  50. Resolution 1975 (2011)/Adopted by the Security Council at its 6508th Meeting, on 30 March 2011. S/RES/1975. (2011). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/604309?v=pdf.
  51. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 2131 (XX). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty. (1965, December). Retrieved from http://un-documents.net/a20r2131.htm.
  52. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 14 September 2009. 63/308. The Responsibility to Protect. (2009, October). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/63/308.
  53. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome (Resolution A/RES/60/1). (2005, October 24). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/60/1.
  54. Resolution Adopted by the Human Rights Council on 4 March 2022. 49/1. Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine Stemming from the Russian Aggression (2022, April). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session49/res-dec-stat.
  55. Roth, K. (2006). Was the Iraq war a humanitarian intervention? Journal of Military Ethics, 5(2), 84-92. doi: 10.1080/15027570600711864.
  56. Rousseff, D. (2011). Speech by the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil at the opening of the general debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved from https://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/presidencia/ex-presidentes/dilma-rousseff/discursos/discursos-da-presidenta/discurso-da-presidenta-da-republica-dilma-rousseff-na-abertura-do-debate-geral-da-66a-assembleia-geral-das-nacoes-unidas-nova-iorque-eua.
  57. Ruoppo, A.P., & Viparelli, I. (Eds.). (2021). Aporie of European integration: Between humanitarian universalism and sovereignism. Naples: FedOA – Federico II Open Access University Press.
  58. Russia’s Military Doctrine. (2000). Retrieved from https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000-05/russias-military-doctrine.
  59. Security Council Demands Immediate End to Violence in Myanmar, Urges Restraint, Release of Arbitrarily Detained Prisoners, Adopting Resolution 2669. (2022, December). Retrieved from https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15159.doc.htm.
  60. Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) (S/RES/1244). (1999, June). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/S/res/1244(1999).
  61. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) on the Situation in Libya (S/RES/1973). (2011, March). Retrieved from https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/resolution-1973-libya-s-res-1973/#:~:text=Resolution%201973%20authorizes%20Chapter%20VII%20measures%20for%20the,zone%20over%20Libyan%20airspace%20and%20an%20arms%20embargo.
  62. Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/global-strategy-european-unions-foreign-and-security-policy_en.
  63. Sondel-Cedarmas, J., & Berti, F. (Eds.). (2022). The right-wing critique of Europe: Nationalist, sovereignist and right-wing populist attitudes to the EU. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
  64. Terms of reference of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human. (2009). Retrieved from https://aichr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/TOR-of-AICHR.pdf.
  65. Text of U.N. Resolution on Iraq. (2002, November). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20021108201750/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/.
  66. The ASEAN Charter. (2015, February). Retrieved from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2.-February-2015-The-ASEAN-Charter-18th-Reprint.pdf.
  67. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on intervention and state sovereignty, 2001. (2001, December). Retrieved from https://surl.li/qsmiyx.
  68. Trahan, J. (2020). Existing legal limits to Security Council veto power in the face of atrocity crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Tucker, P. (2022). Sovereignty and the globalization trilemma: Universalist versus pluralist international law and system in a world of civilizational states. In Global discord: Values and power in a fractured world order (pp. 249-266). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.23943/princeton/9780691229317.003.0011.
  70. United Nations Charter. (1945). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/united-nations-charter#:~:text=Citation%3A%20First%20and%20signature%20pages%20of%20the%20United,established%20with%20the%20signing%20of%20the%20UN%20Charter.
  71. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, December). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
  72. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969, May). Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.
  73. Voeten, E. (2021). Ideology and international institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  74. Zaporozhchenko, R.O. (2023). Political forms of spatial organization in the context of contemporary globalization processes. (Doctoral dissertation, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine).

Suggested citation

Dmytrenko, S., Dmytrenko, O., & Ismayilov, V. (2026). Humanitarian law as a space for competition among global ideologies: Between universalism and sovereignty. Foreign Affairs, 36(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/1.2026.19