The Limits of Sovereignty: Ethical Justifications for International Intervention in the 21st Century

Abstract

Introduction: The evolving nature of sovereignty challenges its absolute status, particularly in humanitarian crises. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine seeks to balance state sovereignty with ethical intervention, yet its selective application and political misuse raise concerns about legitimacy and effectiveness. This study examines the ethical justifications and consequences of international intervention.

Methodology: A mixed-method approach is used, integrating qualitative case studies (Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria) with quantitative analysis of intervention success rates. Thematic analysis is applied to legal documents and expert interviews, while survey data and statistical models assess public perception and intervention outcomes.

Results: Findings show that multilateral UN-backed interventions have a 72% success rate in maintaining stability, whereas unilateral interventions often lead to prolonged conflict. 65% of respondents support humanitarian intervention, but 58% believe interventions are politically motivated.

Discussion: The inconsistent application of R2P undermines its credibility, and political agendas often drive interventions rather than humanitarian needs. Strengthening legal frameworks, accountability mechanisms, and post-intervention reconstruction efforts is crucial.

Conclusion: Ethical interventions require global governance reforms, a redefined sovereignty model, and structured post-conflict strategies to ensure legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term stability.