To begin my argument it is important to give you my definition of humanitarian intervention, dissecting it word by word. The "humanitarian" part refers mainly to the purposes for the intervention, specifically, to protect civilians from other states from harsh rulings and immoral actions by their rulers or protected groups in their own country. The "intervention" part is expressed in terms involving the action being without the consent of the target state in denying its state sovereignty. Humanitarian intervention challenges the global community with the moral responsibly to act in the face of human rights violations that may occur in member states. The ultimate intent of humanitarian intervention is to protect the human entity from potential and ongoing abuses and whatever violations that maybe. The case for humanitarian intervention has much opposition, including the notion that it infringes upon the principle of sovereignty and non-intervention, that it poses a threat to the stability of international law and order, and that it is ultimately near ineffective. Humanitarian intervention infringes upon the principle of sovereignty and non-intervention. This principle of law was created during the ˜Peace of Westphalia' in 1648, which makes civilians transfer their individual liberty to the state in exchange for personal and public safety. The theory of realism states that states have a right to determine the fate of its peoples without interference by other states or external actors, as these states have internal as well as external sovereignty. Therefore, for one country to intervene in the domestic affairs of another country, either unilaterally or multilaterally, can be seen as a breach of the self-determination right of nations and the government as its representative. Humanitarian intervention poses a threat to the stability of international law and order. The use of force by a state on its civilians is prohibited in internat