Abstract: The subject of this research is the principle of state sovereignty which was seriously challenged by humanitarian interventions in the 1990s and early 2000s that were primarily initiated by the United States of America. In developing the concept of humanitarian intervention, which gradually formed into foreign policy, the United States tied to the classical principle of sovereignty the obligation of respecting human rights, which thus transforms sovereignty from the prerogative and exclusive right of a state to act independently into the principle of imposing obligations and designating responsibility. It should be noted that the study of sovereignty, intervention and, consequently, conflicts, is difficult to conduct within the framework of one scientific direction and of one theory. Therefore, for this article, the author used an inter-paradigm approach, linking together existing theories and their elements. As a result, in the eyes of the numerous supporters of the concept of humanitarian interventions, the non-observance of human rights deprived the state of sovereignty and therefore of immunity from interference in its internal affairs, including in military form. The very principle of sovereignty itself was thus recognized as the most important quality of a state, which, in fact, could be somewhat limited. During the course of the study's analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the critical importance of protecting human rights throughout the world, intervention is possible only with the approval of the UN Security Council and only when human rights violations threaten to become widespread.