The Necessity of Reviewing the Principle of Non-intervention in the Light of Emerging Human Rights Norms

The non-intervention rule is one of the established principles of international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, Although that has endured Until the early years of the twenty-first century, However given the rapid evolution of human rights in the modern era, it appears that such a principle faces numerous challenges and constraints. Instead of resorting to sovereignty mechanisms of human rights, such changes, in an unprecedented movement and a turning point in the development of human rights, have targeted its fundamental principles and pushed them to the margins by circumventing national sovereignty. In fact, the main question that arises is, within the context of expanding contemporary human rights norms, what normative and structural developments has the non-intervention rule seen, and what challenges have these changes faced? This descriptive-analytical study examined such changes and how they affect the nature and score of the non-intervention rule from a different perspective. The finding showed that transforming sovereignty into responsibility, as well as the establishment of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), purposive sanctions, and military intervention under the guise of fighting terrorism, are examples that not only have theoretical contradictions with the non-intervention rule's absolutism, but have also significantly weakened states' undisputed power in terms of human rights.