On the legal grounds, the act of humanitarian intervention is still debatable, On the one hand, there was a responsibility to limit the use of force to self-defense according to the UN Charter. On the other hand, there was strong international pressure to abide by commitments to human rights and the right to life. This has constitute tensions in an international law system, Humanitarian intervention as the justifiable act to intervene while it is contrary to the principle of sovereignty and nonintervention in the UN system and international law. An evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force. The authorized intervention was granted by UN Security Council. Chapter VII of the Charter also provides one clear exception to the non-intervention principle by granting powers to the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, to maintain or restore international peace and security. The necessity of multilateral cooperation in dealing with international peace and security was widely accepted and the use of multilateral intervention became one of the mechanisms employed by the international community in dealing with crisis.
The UN R2P:
…show more content…
The validity of the non-intervention rule and defends intervention on humanitarian grounds, more universalist conception of human rights in which sovereignty is a subsidiary and a conditional