Gamut of humanitarian interventions under the aegis of the united nations: the premises and prospects

The paper uses the UN Charter framework as the premises to explore the impact of humanitarian intervention on sovereignty. This is because the legal status of humanitarian interventions remains unresolved despite responsibility to protect. Besides, the UN Security Council also remains inconsistent in preventing potential humanitarian catastrophes. Meanwhile, the collective actions among states have gained rational-legal legitimacy through military alliances or regional organisations, cooperation, and solidarity under international law. In this sense, this paper focuses on the premise of interventions, the parameter of the UN Charter's prohibition of the use of force, and the significant exceptions allowed for self-defence and the UN Security Council authorised use of force. Likewise, it examines the heinous cases where the UN Charter is not accepted as authoritative or controls the States’ behaviour. In this regard, the paper vividly explores the relationship between collective action's legitimacy and the legality of collective humanitarian interventions. It especially examines how collective action's legitimacy in some previous humanitarian interventions has influenced its premise and legal reality in this contemporary era.