Humanitarian intervention means rescuing people without taking into account their nationality of their political or religious orientation,but today, the Great Powers have brought the humanitarian into un instrument. They use it either in order to conceal their lack of political will in a conflict (yugoslavia, Rwanda ) or at the service of their hegemonic desire (Kosovo, Iraq). It is in this context that in 2002 an idea appeared according to which it pertains to the international community’s responsibility to protect a population against catastrophes or violence when the state to which it belongs is not willing or capable of doing it. Can this "responsibility" signify a war officially motivated by the rescue of population hit by repression?This is the issue that lies at the core of the study.The analysis, having a politico-legal methodology, is centered on one or several states right to military intervene on an another state’s territory in an officially humanitarian purpose and on the dangers drive from this right. Since making a "responsibility to protect", official -even by force- should not conceal the real obligation of the international community’s non- armed reaction against serious human and humanitarian rights' violation and the frequent non- performance of this obligation by the states in the majority of cases, the problem is less the lack of juridical means and more
the lack of political will when it comes to using the existing mechanisms: in this context what is the principle’s utility?
)