Humanitarian intervention can be defined as “an activity undertaken by a state, a group within a state, a group of states or a international organization that coercively interferes in internal affairs. affairs of another State”. (Vincent, 1974, p.3) Now, depending on the school of thought, this can be seen either in a positive light or in a negative light. For those who subscribe to the theory of solidarity, the idea of ​​humanitarian intervention is perfectly viable, because those who support this theory advocate the application of international law capable of combating the violation of human rights , For example. On the other hand, pluralist theorists believe that the idea of ​​intervention, humanitarian or otherwise, is simply unacceptable. Nevertheless, the liberal argument seems to be the best one to describe the concept of humanitarian intervention, assuming that it prevents or stops human rights violations. In response to liberal thinking on humanitarian intervention, some would argue that intervention not only undermines state sovereignty, but also destroys the conditions required for international order. (Ayoob, 2002, p.84) The effectiveness of humanitarian intervention is also questioned, with several recent interventions considered failures. The use of the military is a large part of the problem and drives the need to change the process of humanitarian intervention. PART 1 – THE LIBERAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF HUMANIAN INTERVENTION The liberal argument is undoubtedly the best for explaining the reasons and benefits of humanitarian intervention. . The famous liberal thinker John Stuart Mill expressed that there was a distinction between going to wars of aggression for selfish reasons and going to war to prevent atrocities that...... middle of paper .. .... the state is the main argument against its existence. (Spalding, 2013, p.5) International realist theorists are in fact non-interventionists because they believe that international society is a state of anarchy and, as such, value order far above morality. According to them, for there to be order, States must be sovereign and their sovereignty must be respected. The supreme power remains the State, which is why universal human rights and the need for humanitarian intervention are rejected. Pluralists also add to their argument the claim that the plurality of international politics indicates that it is impossible to agree on a universal standard of human rights. Non-interventionist arguments are based on the rejection of universal human rights and the importance of state sovereignty over morality. (Spalding, 2013, p...6)