Abstract

The principle of humanitarian intervention and the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have emerged as pivotal frameworks in addressing mass atrocities and gross human rights violations under international law. This study critically examines the evolving trends in the application of these principles within the context of international criminal law. It explores the interplay between state sovereignty and the international community’s obligation to prevent and respond to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The analysis delves into the legal and ethical dimensions of R2P, focusing on its implementation challenges, such as political bias, selectivity, and the absence of a universal enforcement mechanism. Furthermore, the research highlights key cases where humanitarian intervention has been invoked, evaluating their adherence to international legal norms and their implications for global governance, the criteria and procedures for intervention, major case studies such as Kosovo, Libya, and Syria, the roles of the United Nations and regional organizations, and issues around implementation. The paper analyzes patterns in the scholarly discourse and argues that research has tended to polarize between “interventionists” and “sovereigntists” although some seek to find compromise positions. It is argued that future research needs to bridge these divides and seek new ways to make humanitarian intervention and R2P work effectively in practice. The paper offers suggestions for progressing the debate.