While the normative and legal aspects of humanitarian intervention have been explored in great detail, scholars have usually overlooked the more practical question of when military humanitarian action can be undertaken. To shed light on this question, the first section of the article investigates the conditions and circumstances that should be taken into consideration by the potential interveners. The conditions and circumstances are mostly external in nature which means that the interveners capabilities are important but not a fundamental issue. One of the crucial conditions, often neglected, seems to be clear political situation in the state that is the object of intervention. Preventing or stopping mass killings as a desired outcome is dependent on generating political will that is interlocked with the prospect of success. In the next section, itemised conditions and circumstances are examined in the context of a revolution in Libya in 2011 and of the early years (2011–2013) of the civil war in Syria. It appears that, in the case of Libya, the internal and international situation was definitely to the interveners’ favour. By contrast, the risk of failure in Syria was perceived as very high. A humanitarian intervention in Syria for Western powers could have led to sticking in the quagmire and would have in fact served the interests of local players. The conclusion is if certain conditions and circumstances are absent, the interveners refrain from taking action. Subsequently, humanitarian intervention is more likely to take place when the potential interveners see a higher chance of achieving their operational and political goals by using military force.
Bucher J., Engel L., Harfensteller S., Dijkstra H. ‘Domestic Politics, News Media, and Humanitarian Intervention: Why France and Germany Diverged over Libya’. European Security, Vol. 22, No. 3, 524–539.
Cronogue G. (2012). ‘Responsibility to Protect: Syria The Law, Politics, and Future of Humanitarian Intervention post Libya’. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1, 124–159.
Fryar G. (2013). The (air) power to coerce: the role of air power in 21st century coercive diplomacy. Canberra: The Air Power Development Centre, Canberra.
Goodman P., Hasan M., Boudet A. (2013). ‘World Public Opinion Sharply Opposed To Syria Strikes’. Huffington Post [online]. Available at < https://bit.ly/2KZKMHr> [Accessed on: June 4, 2017].
O’Hanlon M. (1997). Saving Lives with Force: Military Criteria for Humanitarian Intervention. Washington: Brookings Institution.
O’Hanlon M. (2002). ‘Saving Lives with Force: An Agenda for Expanding the ACRI’. Journal of International Aff airs. Vol. 55, No. 2, 289–300.
Hildebrandt T. et al. (2013). ‘The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology’. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 9, No. 3, 243–266.
Holzgrefe J.L. (2003). The humanitarian intervention debate. In: Holzgrefe J.L. and Keohane R. (eds.). Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–52.
Hooker B. (2010). Consequentialism. In: Skorupski J. (ed.). The Routledge companion to ethics. New York: Routledge, 444–455.
ICISS (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre
Jakobsen P.V. (1998). Western Use of Coercvie Diplomacy aft er the Cold War. A Challenge for Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Jennings R. and Watts A. (eds.) (1992). Oppenheim’s International Law. 9th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kanter A. (2000). Memorandum to the President. In: Frye A. (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention. Craft ing a Workable Doctrine. Three Options Presented as Memoranda to the President. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1–19.
Krieg A. (2013). Motivations for Humanitarian Intervention: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. London: War and Defence Studies.
Kuperman A. (2000). ‘Rwanda in Retrospect’. Foreign Aff airs. Vol. 79, No. 1, 94–118.
Kuperman A. (2001). The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide in Rwanda. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Leiby R., Mansour M. (2011). ‘Arab League asks U.N. for no-fly zone over Libya’. The Washington Post [online]. Available at < https://wapo.st/2KTvYxv> [Accessed on: June 3, 2017].
Nahlawi Y. (2016). ‘The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria’. Global Responsibility to Protect. Vol. 8, No. 1, 76–101.
Natsios A. (1996). Illusions of Influence: The CNN Eff ect in Complex Emergencies. In: Rotberg R. and Weiss T. (eds.). From Massacres to Genocide: The Media, Public Policy, and Humanitarian Crises. Washington: The Brookings Institution and World Peace Foundation, 149–168.
Oudraat de Jonge C. (2000). Intervention in Internal Conflict. Legal and Political Conundrums. Working Paper No. 15. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Stromseth J. (2003). Rethinking humanitarian intervention: the case for incremental change. In: Holzgrefe J.L. and Keohane R. (eds.). Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232–272.
TASS (2014). ‘Islamic State formations comprise up to 70,000 gunmen — Chief of Russia’s General Staff ‘. TASS [online]. Available at <http://tass.ru/en/world/766237> [Accessed on: May 30, 2017].
Tocci N. (2016). ‘On Power and Norms: Libya, Syria and the Responsibility to Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect. Vol. 8, No. 1, 51–75.
Verwey W. (1998). Humanitarian Intervention in the 1990s and Beyond: An International Law Perspective. In: Pieterse J.N. (ed.). World Orders in the Making. Humanitarian Intervention and Beyond. London: Macmillan, 180–207.
Waever O. (1996). ‘The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate’. In: Smith S., Booth K., Zalewski M. (eds.). International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 149–185.
Zifcak S. (2012). ‘Responsibility to Protect aft er Libya and Syria’. Melbourne Journal of International Law. Vol. 13, No. 1, 59–93.