The concept of using military force to police human rights violations first emerged in the 19th century. The changes made after World War II included a framework to address such concerns, but its applications have changed since the Cold War ended. There have been many foreign interventions under that pretext recently, both authorised by the United Nations and not. The number of the latter is steadily escalating, as various powers bypass the institution, knowing that their initiatives there would be blocked. This paper will discuss the various issues surrounding the concept of lawful humanitarian intervention and propose improvements to international law on the topic. The Issue The term “Humanitarian Intervention” is used to describe a variety of situations occurring in international legal practice. In a broad sense, it can be defined as a state’s military intervention against another country to protect human rights. The reactive nature of such actions is a problem that leads to the situation when international forces get involved in the conflict when it is already too late. In cases when severe violations of human rights take place, procedural limitations lead to a delayed response and a failure to prevent the crisis. 1 This problem suggests that internationally approved mechanisms are needed to handle occurrences of human rights violations with emphasis on the usage of soft force and prevention of further escalation. The Law The Charter of the United Nations requires the creation and passing of a resolution before the intervention is approved. 2 However, five major powers can veto the initiative for any reason, even when they are interested parties. As a result, whenever one of these significant powers is involved, it becomes nearly impossible to have the UN approve any actions regarding the situation, and nations use humanitarian intervention to circumvent the organisation. At the same time, countries cannot condone human rights violations that happen in plain sight. As a result, they have to use a workaround to justify their actions and avoid incurring penalties. The result is a complicated dilemma, with the method having advantages and disadvantages. Humanitarian intervention is the only method to address human rights violations when a permanent Security Council member supports the regime that conducts them. However, its continued usage legitimises the practice and renders the United Nations ineffectual. 3 If the tendency continues, nations will use humanitarian intervention as a pretence for invasions, and accusations of that nature are emerging already. A new approach that has does not obstruct warranted action or create loopholes that various powers can abuse to intervene unlawfully or prevent interference is necessary. The Argument The lack of a clear and unambiguous definition of the term is the main problem that makes using it in international legal practice difficult and ineffective. All states are primarily focused on serving their national interests and do not necessarily prioritise the prevention of violations of human rights. Thus, creating unbiased regulations based on unambiguous terminology is necessary to eliminate any possibility of abusing international law. Contradiction w