The subject of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has attracted the interest of researchers, and remains controversial, both in theory and in practice. This piece of work examines the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) intervention in Libya in 2011. It assesses the decision to intervene based on the claim of humanitarian norms, on the one hand, and state interest, on the other hand. This paper will present reasons why the U.S. and some of its European allies intervened in Libya but not in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and other countries, where mass atrocities happened. The response to the crisis in Libya was remarkably quick, whereas, in many other cases of mass atrocity, those crimes have failed to generate sufficient and timely political will to protect civilians at risk. Humanitarian intervention is said to be undertaken because of concern for the well-being of civilians. Thus, this study based on Christopher Hobson’s argument observes that due to the limitation of human physical and mental abilities, one can’t predict the outcome of their actions accurately. However, intervening parties should be more cautious before the action. The humility theory serves as a framework for understanding the physical and mental constraints of humans. Humility is considered a significant factor in influencing human behaviour. The right intention of R2P does not lead to a good outcome all the time, because of human disability and limitations to control external events.
Zyad Nuri (Sun,) studied this question.