Competition Between the Principle of State Sovereignty and the Principle of Irrevocability of International Criminal Responsibility of Public Officials

The aim of this research is to conduct a comprehensive international legal and criminal law analysis of the conflict between the principle of state sovereignty and the principle of the inevitability of international criminal responsibility of public officials. This study seeks to identify the essential characteristics and normative content of these principles, uncover the limits and conditions of their compatibility within contemporary international law, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing international legal mechanisms for holding officials accountable in the context of their relationship with domestic sovereignty and national legal systems. To achieve this aim, the research sets several objectives: to examine the genesis and stages of development of these principles; to analyze the content of the concepts of "state sovereignty," "inevitability of international criminal responsibility," and "public officials"; to study the legal codification of the examined principles within universal and regional international treaties; to analyze the primary mechanisms for resolving conflicts between these principles; to identify challenges preventing the effective prosecution of officials for international criminal offenses; and to develop a system of recommendations for improving international legal and national mechanisms. The study employs general scientific methods (dialectical, systemic, functional) as well as specific scientific methods (formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal). Key findings of the research indicate that the principle of state sovereignty and the principle of the inevitability of international criminal responsibility of officials are in a state of objective competition, resulting from their differing legal natures and functional purposes. The evolution of international criminal justice from the Westphalian system to the establishment of the International Criminal Court reveals a persistent trend towards limiting states' sovereign prerogatives in prosecuting officials. It is argued that an optimal balance between the examined principles is achieved through the application of the principle of complementarity, the doctrine of "aut dedere aut judicare," and mechanisms for transferring cases to international judicial instances. The article presents a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing international legal and national mechanisms to ensure the inevitability of accountability while respecting state sovereignty. In conclusion, the competition between the principles is not insurmountable; its resolution is possible through a differentiated approach that considers the category of officials, the gravity of the committed crimes, and the readiness of national legal systems for effective prosecution.