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

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