ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the concept of 'humanitarian intervention'. It reviews eleven cases since 1945 in which: states have explicitly justified their uses of force as 'humanitarian interventions'; states have justified their uses of force on 'humanitarian' grounds generally; or observers have characterized state uses of force absent UN authorization as potential 'humanitarian interventions'. The chapter focuses on the characterization of state practice. It sets out the three most frequently made arguments in support of the legality of humanitarian intervention: protection of human rights; revival of the customary right of humanitarian intervention and per-missible force below the threshold. The chapter assesses whether 'humanitarian intervention' represents a legitimate justification for recourse to force under the contemporary. Most states have condemned interventions undertaken for 'humanitarian' purposes. Of those states not condemning such uses of force, most have refrained from explicitly invoking the 'humanitarian intervention' concept, preferring instead to rely upon other legal arguments.
