This thesis is an analysis based on the problem of defining a humanitarian intervention and argues when or not, it is appropriate to operate it. The interest lies in finding out whether the argument itself is justifiable,not whether the act of interference was justifiable. My hypothesis is that both private and international operatios misuse the definition "humanitarian interventions" as an excuse to trespass the laws of war. Behind the idea of protecting human rights, freedom and democracy, is the liberalist idea of all individuals being equal. The respect for their freedom and rights drives outside actors to intervene when crimes are comitted against them. I wished to discuss Nato's argument for "the Right to Intervene" in order to avoid ahumanitarian crises in Kosovo 1999. I intended to try the intellectual validity and reasoning behind their argument but it was more difficult than I'd expected. Because the sources to their statements were inconclusive, the conclusion turned out to be difficult to assess, though there is a vague idea of Nato's point of view being unreasonable in comparison to their actions.