Under what circumstances is humanitarian intervention justified?

Humanitarian Intervention is a state's use of military force against another state with the intent to end human rights violations being perpetrated by the state. However, as a narrow definition, this can also be combated by the use of humanitarian aid and international sanctions. This means that when addressing the justification of humanitarian intervention, we should encompass non-forcible methods which can be closely associated with soft power.

Humanitarian Intervention immediately questions the authority of the sovereign state. The idea of 'responsible sovereignty' means that for a state to have absolute sovereignty, by principle, they are required to respect their own people but must also co-operate with other nation states on an international level. This issue is exemplified in the Kosovo Crisis in 1999 as it saw tensions between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. As NATO attempted to end human rights abuses in Kosovo, using military force without the approval of the UN Security Council. With the states' autonomy was relinquished, the cost of an independent Kosovo 10 years later was the killing of 4000 civilians.

It has now become increasingly clear that, in reference to the UK and US at least, humanitarian intervention has become unjustified. This is largely due to a distrust in global politics and reasons for intervention. For instance, the War on Terror, beginning in 2001, culminating in the Iraq War in 2003, has been debated in it's justification, the belief that the US led coalition was a form of 'window dressing' for other political means; of which could include exploration for oil, replacing governments led by dictators etc. under the idea of a humanitarian crisis.

From a realist standpoint, states are largely unable to carry out intervention unless acting out of self defence and the most importance is placed on sovereignty, however, in a world where liberal democracy is growing, along with the development of intergovernmental bodies, there is an increasing approach regarding human rights and holding sovereign states accountable.

Common Morality also means that regarding intervention, should there be a universally set standard of human rights? Some nations do not uphold the same common values as liberal democracy, considering the intervention of these states as oppressive of their ideology or religion in the Middle East, or in Asia whereby socio-economics and quality of life are placed above the rights of the people. This makes human rights hypocritical to the way some cultures live and makes intervention controversial.

Ultimately, humanitarian intervention is a controversial matter, particularly after the War on Terror, as we begin to question the effectiveness and the reasoning for intervention. However, in states where human rights atrocities are being carried out, there is sometimes little choice on the part of groups such as NATO to intervene.