Throughout history people fought each other, seeking to maximize their power, or simply for security motives. However, after the Cold War ended, International Relations changed a lot. Such changes were mirrored in intervention policies as well, especially after the Rwanda Genocide took place in 1994. In the 1980s a new approach to military interventions came along, namely Humanitarian Interventions. According to Robert Hoag article Armed Humanitarian Intervention, humanitarian intervention is defined as “The use of military force to address the extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their own government’s actions or failures to act.” (par. 1) In other words, this kind of interventions purpose is to protect, rescue or defend people from violation or abuse, which is cast upon them by the government. This intervention can be executed by states or International Organizations. Furthermore, humanitarian interventions are a zero-sum game and occur without the approval of the offending state. On this essay, based on cosmopolitan doctrine, I will argue why humanitarian intervention can be justified, DUE to the protection of human rights, and states responsibilities. Before proceeding with my main arguments, first of all, I will explain the Cosmopolitan theory. Cosmopolitan theory, instead of the state, regards the individual, as the major moral actor. Based on this