Discuss the view that a "humanitarian intervention" reflects the interests of great powers rather than legal or moral principles.

How does the world react when “bad things happen in unimportant places”? [1] Do Chomsky's 'enlightened states' of the world have an interest, a responsibility, or even a right to intervene when gross human rights violations are occurring abroad? At what point does such a responsibility take shape? At the point when the “bad things” occur, or at the point when their effects pose a threat to international security through, for example, a consequent mass movement of refugees?

At first sight the phrase 'humanitarian intervention' may conjure up an image of an international Saint Christopher rushing in figuratively to carry a weakened nation across the gushing river of a humanitarian crisis that has swelled to such proportions that the global community can no longer turn a blind eye in the name of state sovereignty.

However, it is obvious why one may also be persuaded that such interventions may be more political than Samaritan in nature. There has been a veritable proliferation of humanitarian interventions since the end of the Cold War and yet certain situations, such as the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, have not been deemed incumbent for international action.

Does this lack of continuity in decision-making reflect an absence of a coherent international framework for intervention, or is it representative of a more cynical lack of political interest and will?

This essay aims to establish that, whilst the great powers will never act out of pure altruism, they do not necessarily break with legal and moral principles in their selective intervention to defend international peace and security.

Firstly, I will establish the meaning of the terms 'great powers' and 'humanitarian intervention', illustrating that their very definition goes some way to illuminating the title's thesis.

Then I will examine the international legal principles and institutional framework behind humanitarian intervention, before analysing the moral principles governing intervention, devoting particular weight to recent developments.

Finally, I will draw on case studies from the last two decades in order to shed light upon the question as to whether the great powers have been acting in their own self-interest or whether they have, as they assert, been performing a role of global benefactor, ultimately concluding that there is a mixture of motives in any political decision-making.