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

The transformation of the idea of national sovereignty in international law after 2022: From the Westphalian model to the Responsibility to Protect

Iryna Dzyublenko

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify key transformations in the concept of national sovereignty in contemporary international law under the influence of geopolitical crises after 2022. The methodology combined historical and legal analysis, a comparative approach, and content analysis of international documents, which made it possible to identify patterns in the formation of a new interpretation of sovereignty. The results showed that the traditional view of the absoluteness of state sovereignty has lost its practical force, giving way to an understanding of it as a relative category closely linked to the state’s responsibility to its population and the international community. A comparative analysis showed that the Westphalian model, which emphasises the inviolability of borders, has proved ineffective in protecting the civilian population, while the concept of Responsibility to Protect has become a priority. This is confirmed by the cases of Ukraine, where Russia’s aggression has brought international criminal law mechanisms to the fore, as well as the situations in Gaza and Kashmir, which have focused discussions on humanitarian interventions and the limits of state immunity. It was found that after 2022, the concept of Responsibility to Protect received new confirmation in the practice of international institutions, in particular through the consideration of war crimes, genocide and mass human rights violations. The analysis showed that although the Westphalian model remains the basis of the international legal order, it is no longer capable of providing adequate protection for the civilian population in global crises. The results obtained indicate the formation of a mixed model in which the classical principles of sovereignty coexist with the norms of humanitarian law aimed at preventing crimes against humanity. The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of using its conclusions to improve international legal mechanisms for responding to crises, developing strategies for protecting human rights in armed conflicts, and adapting foreign policy doctrines to new global realities

Keywords

security; global crises; independence; principle of sovereign equality; documentation of crimes

References

  1. About the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/about.
  2. 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). doi: 10.58425/ajlps.v2i1.111.
  3. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). (2025, December). Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/case/182.
  4. Azubuike, E.C. (2023). Principle of responsibility to protect: Implications for sovereignty. In E. Duruigbo, R. Chibueze & S. Gozie Ogbodo (Eds.), International law and development in the Global South (pp. 55-77). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-13741-9_5.
  5. Barber, R. (2022). What does the “Responsibility to Protect” require of States in Ukraine? Journal of International Peacekeeping, 25(2), 155-177. doi: 10.1163/18754112-25020005.
  6. Basiru, M., Yaacob, C.M.A., & Omar, R. (2016). 2011 Libyan uprising and NATO intervention: A critical analysis. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 5(2), 286-291.
  7. Bauder, H., & Mueller, R. (2023). Westphalian vs. indigenous sovereignty: Challenging colonial territorial governance. Geopolitics, 28(1), 156-173. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2021.1920577.
  8. Bellamy, A.J. (2023). The responsibility to protect. In Security studies (4th ed.; pp. 268-283). London: Routledge.
  9. Bosse, G. (2022). Values, rights, and changing interests: The EU’s response to the war against Ukraine and the responsibility to protect Europeans. Contemporary Security Policy, 43(3), 531-546. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2022.2099713.
  10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. (1948, December). Retrieved from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/pt/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948.
  11. Cüre, F. (2025). Adapting Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for a multipolar world: Sovereignty, intervention, and veto power. Global Responsibility to Protect, 17(4), 263-287. doi: 10.1163/1875984X-20240031.
  12. Doğan, M. (2023). The Westphalian system of the modern international relations: Violation of sovereignty, ignoration of indigenous rights, and extension of medieval practices in the case of Mosul occupation. Alternative Politics, 15(2), 368-384.
  13. Eskiduman, Ö. (2022). Gaza: R2P and selective implementation. In P. Gözen Ercan (Ed.), The responsibility to protect twenty years on: Rhetoric and implementation (pp. 153-169). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-90731-0_8.
  14. EU delivers over €4 billion to Ukraine ahead of its Independence Day. (2025). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1978.
  15. European civil protection and humanitarian aid operations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/index_en.
  16. Fact or not: Does Russia always use the veto on Syria? (2018). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-43793338.
  17. Hoare, M.A. (2021). The Bosnian genocide and the Srebrenica massacre. Bosnian Studies: Journal for Research of Bosnian Thought and Culture, 5(1), 40-52. doi: 10.47999/bos.2021.5.1.40-52.
  18. Hussain, M., & Mehmood, S. (2021). Genocide in Kashmir and the United Nations failure to invoke Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Causes and consequences. Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, 18(1), 55-77. doi: 10.1515/mwjhr-2020-0017.
  19. Kassim, Y.R. (2014). Critiques and critics of R2P. In The geopolitics of intervention. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-4585-48-4_6.
  20. Lazovic, L. (2025). International norms transformation: Responsibility to Protect and its role in global conflict management. (Bachelor thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden).
  21. Manuilova, K.V. (2023). The formation and development of the concept of responsibility for international crimes violating human rights. Academic Visions, 17.
  22. Mégret, F. (2021). Are there “inherently sovereign functions” in international law? American Journal of International Law, 115(3), 452-492. doi: 10.1017/ajil.2021.23.
  23. Mennecke, M., & Stensrud, E.E. (2021). The failure of the international community to apply R2P and atrocity prevention in Myanmar. Global Responsibility to Protect, 13(2-3), 111-130. doi: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020013.
  24. Mihalache, O.-C. (2022). Norms of protection in IR: Humanitarian wars and the ironic creation of pre-Westphalian states. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(1). doi: 10.1080/13642987.2021.1988933.
  25. Moses, J. (2024). Gaza and the political and moral failure of the Responsibility to Protect. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 18(2), 211-215. doi: 10.1080/17502977.2024.2304987.
  26. Mykhalskyi, Y., Kendus, O., & Gorokhovsky, D. (2025). Ukraine’s role in forming a new international security system after 2022. Public Management and Policy, 4(8). doi: 10.70651/3041-2498/2025.4.04.
  27. NATO’s role in Kosovo. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48818.htm.
  28. Oguejiofor, P.O., Okafor, F.-C.N., & Nwagbo, S.N. (2024). The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the United Nations’ application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Political Science, 9(1).
  29. Onay, Y. (2025). The Rwandan genocide: A humanitarian catastrophe in the pages of history. Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice, 2(1), 13-28. doi: 10.26650/hupej.2025.2.1.1718146.
  30. Paris, R. (2022). European populism and the return of “illiberal sovereignty”: A case-study of Hungary. International Affairs, 98(2), 529-547. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiac004.
  31. Patel, A., & Tiwari, R. (2024). Critical analysis of international law failures in the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Implications for global security. Law and Safety, 94(3), 46-55. doi: 10.32631/pb.2024.3.04.
  32. Resolution 1674 (2006) / Adopted by the Security Council at its 5430th Meeting, on 28 April 2006. (2006, April). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/573969?v=pdf&ln=en.
  33. Resolution 1706 (2006) / Adopted by the Security Council at its 5519th Meeting, on 31 August 2006. (2006, August). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/582107?v=pdf&ln=en.
  34. Resolution 1973 (2011) / Adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th Meeting, on 17 March 2011. (2011, March). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/699777?v=pdf&ln=en.
  35. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005. (2005, October). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/60/1.
  36. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 2 March 2022. (2022, March). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-11/1.
  37. Roscini, M. (2024). International law and the principle of non-intervention: History, theory, and interactions with other principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Ruth, C.K. (2021). The United Nations’ Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Policy, preference, or politics. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, USA).
  39. Saaida, M.B.E. (2023). Syria: More than one flag and incomplete national sovereignty. International Journal of Research, 10(5), 59-68. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15085759.
  40. Sahana, B. (2025). Impact of globalization on national sovereignty. International Journal of Arts Humanities & Social Sciences (IJAHSS), 1, 29-36. doi: 10.56815/IRJAHS/2025.n1.29-36.
  41. Shumsky, I.K. (2021). The significance of the peace of Westphalia of 1648 in the formation of the system of international relations. Almanac of International Law, 26, 10-18. doi: 10.32841/ILA.2021.26.02.
  42. Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and.
  43. Teson, F. (2005). Humanitarian intervention: An inquiry into law and morality (3rd ed.). New York: Transnational Publishers.
  44. The Peace of Westphalia established principles of international relations that are still relevant today. (2023). Retrieved from https://armyinform.com.ua/2023/10/24/vestfalskyj-myr-zaklav-aktualni-donyni-prynczypy-mizhnarodnyh-vidnosyn/.
  45. The Veto. (2015, October). Retrieved from https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php?print=true.
  46. Ukraine v. Russia: Hague tribunal to hear genocide case. (2022). Retrieved from https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/news/ukraine-v-russia-hague-tribunal-to-hear-genocide-case/.
  47. 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%20Charte.
  48. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, December). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
  49. What is the Holocaust? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/.
  50. Wyse, C. (2018). The African Union’s right of humanitarian intervention as collective self-defense. Chicago Journal of International Law, 19(1), 295-332.
  51. Yusseff-Vanegas, Z.N. (2023). The Responsibility to Protect in Palestine: Analysing UN actions and refugee voices. (Master’s thesis, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden).

Suggested citation

Dzyublenko, I. (2026). The transformation of the idea of national sovereignty in international law after 2022: From the Westphalian model to the Responsibility to Protect. Foreign Affairs, 36(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/1.2026.53