All states are sovereign and have the right to manage their own internal affairs without interference. According to international law, the territorial integrity of all states must be protected and respected. Any interference, military or political, in the internal affairs of states is not allowed. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use or threat of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state is prohibited.
The UN Charter states that the organization should not interfere in matters that are essentially within the internal competence of states. Advocates of intervention point out that the United Nations Charter emphasizes the importance of human rights and requires member states to ensure appropriate standards of human rights protection.[1]  What is important is that the intervention is limited to a purpose consistent with humanitarian intent.[2]
According to the classical definition, the word "humanitarian" implies concern for the welfare of people and protection of their rights. Humanitarian intervention is the measures implemented by the international communities, which aim to protect and help people during severe humanitarian crises. Measures taken by the international community with the aim of stopping or mitigating mass and grave violations of human rights, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and mass murder. In many cases, it is a military or other type of intervention carried out by one or more states to ensure the protection of citizens in situations where their lives and rights are at risk. According to the UN Charter, humanitarian intervention should normally be carried out within the framework of resolutions approved by the UN Security Council, Before the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, there are also examples of international military missions with humanitarian goals. One of them, as mentioned above, is the French intervention in Syria in 1860-1861, It was a humanitarian, geopolitical and diplomatic measure aimed at protecting the Christian population and stopping the massacre of Christians.[3]
In 1945, with the adoption of the UN Charter, the possibility of unilateral military actions was strictly limited. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) is an important principle related to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, according to which, All Member States shall refrain in their international relations from the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations. The clause protects the territorial integrity and political independence of all states, Which means that no country should threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country. The clause clearly prohibits the use or threat of force in relations between states, although Article 7 of the Charter makes an exception to it and adds, except in cases provided for in the UN Charter (eg, the right of self-defense in the event of a threat to the peace and measures authorized by the Security Council). In addition, the UN Charter excludes the possibility of intervention unilaterally or without granting appropriate authority.
 As for humanitarian intervention, its justification is permissible only if it is clear that it aims to protect international peace. In addition, the Charter of the United Nations excludes the possibility of intervention unilaterally or without granting appropriate authority, which is a difficult and contradictory issue in international law. While swift action is sometimes required to protect human rights, unilateral intervention often raises legal, ethical and political challenges. Unilateral humanitarian intervention is when one or more states decide to intervene in the internal affairs of another state due to a humanitarian crisis or mass human rights violations, without UN authorization. Despite the efforts of the United Nations, the Charter still failed to stop states from unilaterally implementing humanitarian intervention.
 Examples of unilateral implementation of humanitarian intervention are Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979 and India's entry into East Pakistan in 1971. Despite the fact that, due to regional instability, international peace was threatened, the General Assembly expressed a negative attitude in relation to both of the above-mentioned cases and considered that the sovereignty of the respective states was violated by unilateral intervention.[4]
Unilateral implementation of humanitarian intervention by states is legally and ethically controversial. According to the UN Charter, military intervention should only take place with the authorization of the Security Council to ensure its legitimacy and international legality. Nevertheless, the practice of unilateral interventions shows that it is difficult to comply with international law and ethics, especially when it comes to quickly resolving humanitarian crises.
Professor Brownlee points out that proponents of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention either ignore the prerequisites necessary for the formation of new principles of customary law, or, running out of time, come up with a proposal to weaken the requirement of opinio juris[5].
Professor Sima considers intervention illegal even if such action is morally or politically justified. The legality of the intervention, in any case, is based on the multilateral nature of the intervention and the authority granted by the competent international organization, and not on any stand-alone right of humanitarian intervention[6].
According to Greenwood, it can no longer be argued that when a government organizes the massacre of its own people or state impotence turns into anarchy, international law prohibits intervention.[7]
Traditionally, "humanitarian intervention" has been defined as the use of any form of military force by one state against another state to stop or alleviate mass human rights violations such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and other grave humanitarian crises.
According to another view, humanitarian intervention occurs when violations are so severe within a country that the international community deems it necessary to intervene, even if the conflict is occurring within a single country. In the opinion of some researchers, the issue of protection of the person and the population is higher than the state sovereignty, which has become more popular and is becoming the basis of discussions.[8]
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (1997-2006) played an important role in developing the idea of humanitarian intervention and drawing the attention of the international community to this issue. During Annan's tenure, several important initiatives and discussions emerged at the UN aimed at increasing the legitimacy and effectiveness of international intervention in human rights and humanitarian crises.
Kofi Annan has actively supported the discussion on how the international community should respond to humanitarian crises. Under his leadership, issues were brought to the UN Security Council for discussion on the possibility of coercive intervention when necessary for the protection of human rights. The criteria are as follows: States have a responsibility to protect their populations against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes. The international community should help states to fulfill this responsibility. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its own population, the international community must take action, including coercive intervention, within the framework of the UN Charter.
In March 2000, at the 9th annual seminar dedicated to international humanitarian law in Geneva, the vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jacques Forster, paid special attention to the issue of the incompatibility of humanitarian action and military intervention in his program speech. According to Forster, there is a clear line between the outcome of humanitarian action and excessive military action. Humanitarian action aims to stop the conflict, in other words, it is not aimed at resolving the conflict, its aim is to protect the violated human dignity and preserve their lives. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, humanitarian action cannot replace political action. These two areas should be clearly distinguished from each other. Additionally, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, humanitarian action cannot be coercive. Experience shows that at this time, humanitarianism is involved in political or military action that contributes to fueling the conflict rather than stopping it. Humanitarian action is successful only where the participants in said action act in accordance with their charter. Such environment is called "humanitarian space".Military intervention is necessary in order to protect international humanitarian law and create an appropriate environment for humanitarian action. Humanitarian intervention should not be the goal of military intervention. [9]
Conclusion. Forster believes that the use of military force by the international community is possible only within the framework of the UN Charter. International humanitarian law cannot be invoked to justify military intervention because it has nothing to do with the use of force. Its role is sharply defined and limits the legitimacy of the use of armed force.
Traditionally, humanitarian intervention involves the use of military force by one state to stop humanitarian crises or mass human rights violations within another state. This intervention is a difficult and controversial issue in international law, as it requires a balance between respect for sovereignty and the need to protect human rights. The international community must find ways to make legitimate and ethical interventions in humanitarian crises, which often require UN sanction and international consensus.
 
References:

1. Bazyler Michael, Re-examining the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of the Atrocities in Kampuchea and Ethiopia, Stanford Journal of International Law, Volume 23, 1987.
2.  Benjamin Barry, Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention: Legalizing the Use of Force to Prevent Human Rights Atrocities, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 16, 1992-1993.
3.  Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law, Sixth edition, Oxford University Press, 2003.
4.   Greenwood C., Is there a right of humanitarian intervention? The World Today, Volume 49, February, 1993.
5. Merriam John, Kosovo and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention, The Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Volume 33, 2001.
6. Humanitarian Intervention and International Humanitarian Law, Keynote address by Jacques Forster, Vice President of the Red Cross, presented at the Ninth Annual Seminar on Internatiional Humanitarian Law for Diplomats accredited to the United Nations, Geneva, 8-9 March 2000.
7.   Rieff David, Humanitarian Intervention, Crimes of War, New York, 1999.
8. Simpson Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereign in the International Legal Order, Cambridge University Press, 2004, Chapter Seven.
9. Scheffer David J., Toward a Modern Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention, University of Toledo Law Review, Volume 23, 1991-1992.

 
 Summary. Humanitarian intervention is an action taken by the international community during a domestic crisis (for example, genocide, war, civil unrest) with the aim of protecting human rights and preventing a humanitarian disaster.   The French intervention in Syria in 1860-1861 was an important historical event and example, which is linked to the ongoing conflict between Druze and Maronite Christians, resulting in serious religious violence and cases of ethnic cleansing. The reasons, process and consequences of this intervention include both humanitarian and geopolitical and diplomatic aspects. Also, the British and French intervention in Greece in 1827-1830 was an important event, which was intended to help Greece fight for independence against the Ottoman Empire. This intervention was an important international event that finally led to the recognition of Greek independence and the reduction of pressure from the Ottoman Empire.
The declaration of the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) on the inadmissibility of intervention is an important principle in international law. This principle is based on the protection of the sovereignty and self-determination rights of states. The UN General Assembly officially recognized this principle and adopted a number of resolutions and declarations that define the inadmissibility of intervention.
Due to all of the above, it is important to analyze what conditions are necessary for humanitarian intervention to be considered legal according to international law, what is the role of the UN in the process of legitimizing humanitarian intervention, what is the difference between humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty.
Keywords: power, humanitarian intervention, international community, state sovereignty, General Assembly.
 
Резюме. Гуманитарная интервенция - это действие, предпринимаемое международным сообществом во время внутреннего кризиса (например, геноцида, войны, гражданских беспорядков) с целью защиты прав человека и предотвращения гуманитарной катастрофы.   Французская интервенция в Сирию в 1860-1861 годах стала важным историческим событием и примером, который связан с продолжающимся конфликтом между друзами и христианами-маронитами, приведшим к серьезному религиозному насилию и случаям этнических чисток. Причины, процесс и последствия этой интервенции включают как гуманитарные, так и геополитические и дипломатические аспекты. Кроме того, британская и французская интервенция в Греции в 1827-1830 годах была важным событием, которое должно было помочь Греции в борьбе за независимость против Османской империи. Это вмешательство стало важным международным событием, которое в конечном итоге привело к признанию независимости Греции и ослаблению давления со стороны Османской империи.
Декларация Генеральной Ассамблеи Организации Объединенных Наций (ООН) о недопустимости вмешательства является важным принципом международного права. Этот принцип основан на защите суверенитета и права государств на самоопределение. Генеральная Ассамблея ООН официально признала этот принцип и приняла ряд резолюций и деклараций, определяющих недопустимость вмешательства.
В связи со всем вышесказанным важно проанализировать, какие условия необходимы для того, чтобы гуманитарная интервенция считалась законной в соответствии с международным правом, какова роль ООН в процессе легитимизации гуманитарной интервенции, в чем разница между гуманитарной интервенцией и государственным суверенитетом.
Ключевые слова: власть, гуманитарная интервенция, международное сообщество, государственный суверенитет, Генеральная Ассамблея.