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
Dmytrenko et al. (Sat,) studied this question.