Sophy Leung | Originally Published: 7 February 2026
Introduction
Militarized humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force to protect and promote human rights in a foreign country, but it is only one of many policy options to accomplish this objective. Its historical origins formally trace back to the 19th Century with Britain, France, and Russia’s interventions to protect persecuted Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Militarized humanitarian interventions are also launched selectively with an element of partiality and geopolitical considerations in addition to pressure from political advocacy groups. Ultimately, militarized humanitarian intervention is founded on the global human rights system, and it shares similar aims with the International Criminal Court (ICC), but as an offensive force to prevent further severe violations of human rights rather than prosecuting human rights violators for crimes they have committed.
The main debate surrounding the justification of militarized humanitarian intervention stems from whether it is an essential tool to prevent the worst forms of human rights violations, such as ethnic cleansing and genocide, or if it is a form of imperialism in disguise that may actually cause more harm than good for the state in question. In this article, I argue that justification for militarized humanitarian intervention is possible but extremely rare, and these exceptions are specific to circumstances. Therefore, militarized humanitarian intervention should only be the final resort for resolving severe rights violations. This article will discuss what constitutes a legitimate humanitarian intervention using the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo before addressing the theoretical and practical constraints of interventions.
Prerequisites for Legitimate and Justified Interventions
In his article “Why is Humanitarian Intervention so Divisive? Revisiting the Debate over the 1999 Kosovo Intervention,” law professor Sean Richmond defines two prerequisites for a legitimate intervention. First, the intervention should be authorized by the UN Security Council, and second, there must be consent from the state in question to receive military aid. Regarding the first prerequisite, militarized humanitarian intervention is arguably the most effective and feasible tool for protecting human rights in many cases where other alternatives fail. Namely, when the UN’s naming and shaming method to exert moral pressure and international condemnation, or the threats of criminal prosecutions by the ICC, are ineffective.
Therefore, the question we must ask is: since militarized humanitarian intervention is not necessarily required to achieve human rights goals, and many alternative methods exist, why do countries still use it? For example, NATO’s 1999 Intervention in Kosovo was found to be illegal yet legitimate, making it the only justified militarized humanitarian intervention to date, according to Richmond. Starting in 1998, Serbian forces led by President Slobodan Milošević oppressed and conducted an ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. Before the NATO intervention, the UN Security Council (UNSC) conducted negotiations and imposed sanctions to no avail. After issuing threats of intervention, thirteen NATO members deployed over a thousand aircraft in airstrikes over Yugoslavia for 78 days to cease the ongoing human rights violations on March 24th, 1999. The intervention’s legitimacy derives from the UN’s classification of the Kosovan situation as a significant violation of human rights and a threat to international peace. Because the UN took an unequivocal stance on the severity of the situation, the intervention was legitimate despite the lack of authorization for the use of force. Furthermore, NATO’s intervention produced effective outcomes that supported its justification on humanitarian grounds in retrospect. Since the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovans was immediately stopped with the withdrawal of Serbian troops, the UNSC voted 12-3 in favour of NATO’s actions, thus recognizing the legitimacy of the intervention.
Meanwhile, the second prerequisite is often contested due to concerns regarding consent and imperialism. According to 18th century Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith, freedom and autonomy are the core values of liberal democracy, but they may be at odds in complex political situations such as militarized humanitarian intervention. In order to ensure the freedom of oppressed groups suffering human rights violations using militarized humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty must inevitably be violated.
All in all, the main concerns surrounding militarized humanitarian intervention are that it is imperialism with underlying motivations of self-benefit. These concerns denote that the intervening power may seek to increase its influence in that region, while victims of human rights violations may utilize statistics to encourage other states to intervene and help them achieve self-determination. For instance, the statistics of the political disappearances during the 1980s Argentinian human rights movement are contested by scholars since activists likely exaggerated the numbers to generate support and motivate systemic democratic reforms. International law expert Cian Moran (The Evolution of Humanitarian Intervention in International Law, 2024) argues that militarized humanitarian intervention has now become a justification for military aggression by citing Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine in 2022. However, there is a lack of supporting evidence due to the conflict’s relatively recent nature and the extensive state control over information.
Theoretical and Practical Constraints
As explained by political science scholar Edwin van de Haar, David Hume and Adam Smith established that humans are partial and value their self-interest over all else. Hence, we are unable to extend true sympathy to those outside our close community, much less to other countries. Moreover, justice is not always about fairness, and there is no guarantee that the outcome will resolve the violation without exacerbating it. This provides a basic explanation for why militarized humanitarian intervention is launched selectively.
In her book Reading Human Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, Professor Anne Orford from the University of Melbourne discovered that most third-world countries are uneasy about militarized humanitarian intervention due to concerns over the erosion of state sovereignty and the deployment of colonial stereotypes. For instance, Lebanon and Syria were placed under French mandates, i.e., under France’s governance, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 until they were deemed capable of self-governance. Although they were not formal colonies, European influence and similar underlying colonial principles are still evident in these Middle Eastern countries today. Orford argues that, like the former French mandate territories, third-world countries are generally perceived as victims in need of reform and protection, while the intervening powers are portrayed as heroes. This creates a divide in perspective that does not improve the situation. Namely, international intervention in the Syrian Civil War escalated the conflict to a complex proxy war and caused more refugees to flee the country with inadequate humanitarian aid. Syrian locals were also wary of foreign powers’ humanitarian efforts because of their history as a former French mandate territory. Hence, militarized humanitarian interventions, particularly those enforced by Western nations, are constrained by a long history of colonialism.
Conclusion
All in all, militarized humanitarian intervention can be a powerful tool to protect human rights despite the ongoing debates regarding its justification. Drawing from the insights of Enlightenment thinkers Hume and Smith, the best intentions cannot always guarantee the best results, especially in a realm as risky as military intervention. This level of uncertainty is all that is necessary to deem militarized humanitarian intervention as the last resort when responding to human rights violations, meaning its justification is extremely challenging and rare, but not entirely impossible.
References
1. Edwin van de Haar, “David Hume and Adam Smith on International Ethics and Humanitarian Intervention,” in Stefano Recchia and Jennifer M. Welsh (eds.), Just and Unjust Military Interventions: European Thinkers from Vitoria to Mill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 154-175.
2. Moran, Cian. The Evolution of Humanitarian Intervention in International Law: From the Ottoman Empire to the Russia-Ukraine War. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2025.https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004696396.
3. Orford, Anne. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. of Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
4. Sean Richmond, “Why is Humanitarian Intervention So Divisive? Revisiting the Debate Over the 1999 Kosovo Intervention,” Journal on the Use of Force and International Law Vol. 3 No. 2 (2016), pp. 234-259.
The Attaché 