Abstract:
Humanitarian intervention, which aims to carry out one of the noblest intentions, seeking to rescue populations that are getting eradicated by their compatriots, and which is conducted via internationally legitimate actions, is a highly debated topic in international politics. The driving forces behind the intervention, i.e. whether it is interest or empathy/help, combined with the question whether intervention in a sovereign state is legal or not, are the main problems of the humanitarian intervention debate. This thesis compares two humanitarian interventions – Somalia (1992) and Rwanda (1994) – conducted by the United Nations to find out realist concerns within humanitarian interventions, as a form of the ultimate liberal cause in current international politics. By doing this, this thesis discusses the prevalence of the realist international politics theory even in liberal aims in an era of increasingly globalized foreign policy.
