To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error.'ДЄccording to Mill's opinion (in 1859) barbarous peoples were found in Algeria and India where the French and British armies had been involved. But there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are. To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect. 'There seems to be no little need that the whole doctrine of non-interference with foreign nations should be reconsidered, if it can be said to have as yet been considered as a really moral question at all.

One of the classic statements for intervention in the affairs of another country is found in John Stuart Mill's essay, A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859) Attitudes have changed considerably since the end of World War II, the Allied discovery of the Holocaust, and the Nuremberg trials. Intervening in the affairs of another state has been a subject of discussion in public international law for as long as laws of nations were developed.

5 Examples of humanitarian intervention.

4 Humanitarian Intervention in Foreign Policy Doctrines.

3 Current Approaches to Humanitarian Intervention.James Pattison, however, has recently argued that the NATO intervention in Libya has bucked this trend. Its frequent use following the end of the Cold War suggested to many that a new norm of military humanitarian intervention was emerging in international politics, although some now argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the US ' war on terror' have brought the era of humanitarian intervention to an end. To its proponents, it marks imperative action in the face of human rights abuses, over the rights of state sovereignty, while to its detractors it is often viewed as a pretext for military intervention often devoid of legal sanction, selectively deployed and achieving only ambiguous ends. Moreover, it has sparked normative and empirical debates over its legality, the ethics of using military force to respond to human rights violations, when it should occur, who should intervene, and whether it is effective.

The subject of humanitarian intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy issue, especially since NATOвЂ™s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, as it highlights the tension between the principle of state sovereignty вЂ“ a defining pillar of the UN system and international law вЂ“ and evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force. The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to statesвЂ™ strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state.Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature.There is, however, a general consensus on some of its essential characteristics: Differences in definition include variations in whether humanitarian intervention is limited to instances where there is an absence of consent from the host state whether humanitarian intervention is limited to punishment actions and whether humanitarian intervention is limited to cases where there has been explicit UN Security Council authorization for action. There is no one standard or legal definition of humanitarian intervention the field of analysis (such as law, ethics, or politics) often influences the definition that is chosen. On this broader understanding, 'Humanitarian intervention should be understood to encompassвЂ¦ non-forcible methods,В namely intervention undertaken without military force to alleviate mass human suffering withinВ sovereign borders.' This definition may be too narrow as it precludes non-military forms of intervention such as humanitarian aid and international sanctions. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a state's use of 'military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.'

List of intervention episodes wiki