Can wars be just? More specifically, can the protection of human rights justify states carrying out warlike actions? It has long been discussed that human rights, at least in their minimal form – “right to life” – represent universal values; moreover, that it is the duty of each state to secure them and not to allow third parties to engage in violating them. However, if in a certain state human rights protection repeatedly fails or its actors even deliberately engage in human rights violations, under which conditions, if at all, can other states rightfully intervene? In my paper, I provide a theoretical assessment of the nature of humanitarian interventions by asking whether and how they can be understood as Just Wars. I begin by addressing the debate between authors who perceive humanitarian interventions as the path to the universalization of human rights, and those for whom humanitarian interventions are nothing but manifestations of power politics of states which have the means to engage in such actions, a new form of imperialism. Then, I introduce the rather neglected Just War theory, that tries to combine the two approaches through determining several criteria which need to be fulfilled for wars, including humanitarian interventions, to be justified. These criteria may be used to assess the justness empirical cases of humanitarian interventions.
