The international community’s moral right, if not duty, to take action in a case of foreign conflict has been the subject of much argument and debate for a long time. In this case, it is clear that the moral reasons for saving lives and stopping violence are very powerful; nevertheless, difficult issues arise about the ‘when’ and ‘how’ of such actions.

In 2005, the United Nations incorporated the concept of the Responsibility to Protect into its deliberations, in specifying the duty of protection of the people by the State from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If such a state of protection is not possible for the particular state, every other state is obliged to act morally. Any such action though, should be evidence of mass atrocities in the proper context and with examination of the effects.

Any sincere appreciation of interventions may be based on the realisation that altruism has little to do with it; rather, they are seized by a cause that presents both humanitarian and political related gains. Thus, a country may wish to intervene for the reason that its interest may be threatened, there is a need for certain resources or the need to change existing geopolitics. Clearly, this does not mean in any way that the ‘moral call’ for intervention is less active.

In the final analysis, the act of intervening must be considered from the standpoint of moral theory and the principles of intervention. There is also the question of how the particular intervention will be undertaken, as well as its short and long-term effects on the people targeted. Generally speaking, the goal of every intervention should be to alleviate any suffering present and to promote human rights, however this includes making such decisions carefully and with avoiding unnecessary consequences.