This study examines the theories about intervention and sovereignty in relation to the world of today, with the raising question about humanitarian intervention in a globalized society.The purpose of this paper is to examine if intervention can be justified in a sovereign state and how it can be justified. The expected outcome is that conclusion can be drawn from the specific case with United Nations intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and what kind of motives they putted up to justify their intervention.Because we are still living in the era of the Westphalia system with the inherited thoughts of state sovereignty, but in conflict with the new ideas of globalization and human rights, it’s of big relevance to look at this topic closer.First of all the reader is presented to the theoretical aspects of state, sovereignty and different kinds of intervention, to become more aware of the complications surrounding the relationship between these conceptions.The method used in this study is a motive analysis with the focus on the motives told by United Nation, to be the reason for the intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The empirical results are based on the reports from United Nations Security Council during the years 1991 – 1995.The results are that the intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina can be justified when looking at the theories in relation to the empirical result, with the FN – charter and the fact of violation against humanitarian law and human rights.One conclusion can easily be drawn, that individual rights are playing a big role in today’s global society and are putting some pressure on the United Nation to look over the rules about humanitarian intervention.

Yes

In July 1995, more than 8,000 young boys and men were executed by Bosnian Serb Forces in what was later declared a genocide in Srebrenica. In the following years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has undergone a long and difficult process of restoring peace and achieving justice and reconciliation. The country's main challenges have mainly concerned Dayton peace agreement and its division of entities and political power, tensions between parties and a structural exclusion of minorities. Following the extensive legal process, a national and international denial of the genocide, and denial of the legitimacy of the ICTY has been dominant. Other historical events like “Safe area” and UN action during the war and the occupation of Srebrenica are important factors for the development towards a democracy. The aim of this thesis is to investigate through a qualitative method the consequences of the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and its impact on the country's ability to achieve peace, justice and reconciliation. Other key concepts are sustainable peace, truth and justice in relation to human rights. Hannah Arendt's theories of total domination, tyranny and political revisionism constitutes the theoretical framework of the thesis. These theories are used to gain a deeper understanding of the concepts, their meaning and how they can be related to countries' transitional justice and achieve peace after serious war crimes. The study shows that the country is strongly affected by its history and the serious violations that the Bosnian Muslim population was subjected to during the war. The widespread denial of the genocide is an extension of suffering and human rights violations, which strongly impedes the country's ability to achieve peace, justice and reconciliation. Other results are that more knowledge is needed about the choice of legal methods after serious violations of humanitarian law. The methods discussed in the study are international tribunals and truth commissions and in which countries these are most adequate. The study has identified gaps in research regarding the understanding of the importance interpersonal relationships, dialogue and a smaller distance between political systems and citizens has for Bosnia & Herzegovina and for countries' recovery and reconciliation processes.