tarian intervention aims at protecting lives, it poses a challenge for the international community, whose foundation builds on principles of sovereignty and non-military intervention. Following world events that occurred in the 1990s especially in Rwanda, Kosovo, Chechnya, Serbia, and Haiti, the world came together to establish laws that prohibited genocide, forbidding oppression of civilians and principles for upholding the fundamental human rights. These are the humanitarian principles from which intervention could be justifiable in the event of abuse. The sovereign states are supposed to protect their citizens, but in the event of oppressive regimes, the international community will be obliged to provide humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarian intervention especially in terms of military saw a rise in the 1990s, more so among the liberal states, which championed for new humanitarian regulations among the international community. According to the United Nations, there was a need to protect forcibly harmless civilians from risks such as oppressive, tyrannical regimes and genocides. Although the United Nations agrees to this norm, there is no day that the United Nations Security Council has ever authorised military intervention, leaving the role solely to the powerful nations such as the United States, Britain, and France. These powerful nations call for humanitarian intervention if and only if, they have vested interests in the states that need help. For example, in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the world looked the other way when the country needed humanitarian assistance most because strategically, the powerful nations had no interest in Rwanda. It is evident that the powerful nations will provide humanitarian intervention either to safeguard their interests or any future interests in the state they are aiding. They just do not provide humanitarian assistance if they do not stand to gain either through political cooperation or economic reasons.