ABSTRACT
Over the past fifty-odd years, nations of the world have been grappling with the extent to which they should intervene in the wars of others. The pragmatic argument justifying intervention is that failing societies with weak or abusive governments, which are embroiled in civil conflict, create regional and global instability and launch refugee flows. The analysis undertaken by the sovereign heads of state is a self-centered one: would intervention in another state’s affairs improve the lot of our country either directly or indirectly by creating a safer and more stable world? A different, though interrelated, line of inquiry is founded on the notion of human rights: is there a legal or moral imperative which demands we intervene to save the people from their own state? Is there a responsibility to protect?
