The problem of humanitarian intervention sits at the crossroad of ideas of human rights, theories of sovereignty and Just War theory.Any respectable argument for such collective violence depends on the assertion that international military intervention is necessary where a polity either causes or allows mortal danger to the life and liberty of its citizens such that its sovereignty is suspended.
By the end of the twentieth century, humanitarian intervention had become one of the most controversial issues in the debate on international relations and foreign policy.
It entails forced intervention in the territory of another state in the name of humanitarian aid or humanity. intervention in Iraq in 2002 illustrates this shift to “duty to protect” as part of U. efforts in the global war on terrorism to prevent further threats and attacks such as those against the United States on September 11, 2001, which killed nearly three thousand people.
In the absence of coherent international legal order, law cannot provide the sole basis for humanitarian intervention.
It must instead be found in ethics, which can be highly subjective.
Both the formal notion of sovereignty and the correlative norm of noninterference have been accorded legal expression under the international law.
Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force between the states and Article 2, section 7 prohibits the UN from intervening into matters falling within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state.
Such interventions have been multilateral and based on cooperation among various governments on the basis of short and long-term goals.
Humanitarian interventions, however, have never been purely humanitarian and can be explained both in terms of idealism and realism.
Under this tradition, intervention occurs only to enhance one’s power and not to protect human rights per se.
The basis for intervention lies in the ability to intervene and not in the right to do so.