I believe it was in 1999 that Tony Blair held a speech in Chicago, advocating the States responsibility to protect its people. If the state failed to do so and did not ask for help, the international community (in practice Western powers) should intervene - starting with soft power tools to help the people in need but if anything else failed then use force.

According to the UN World Summit Outcome from 2005 (link added), the international community is obligated to intervene in the case of a humanitarian crisis where the hosting state is failing to protect or maybe even are the perpetrator.

I will upload a paper that deals with this issue - it is a midterm paper, but it got an A.

I hope this answer was useful.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/A-RES-60-1-E.pdf

UN Charter recognizes principles of States sovereignty and non-interference by any States in the domestic affairs of another State. The principle of non-interference limits interference even by the united Nations itself except intervention pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter with respects to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.  Thus, to invoke Chapter VII, one has to prove that "such abuses of human rights of their subjects" are "threats to the peace ...."

At the same time one may also argue that principle of R2P may also be invoked. Under the 3 pillars of R2P, State has primary responsibility to protect citizens from genocide, war crime, crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing. International community also has responsibility to assist such State in performing its responsibility to protect. if State failed to protect then international community can adopt (i) appropriate approach through diplomatic, humanitarian and peaceful measures; or (ii) stronger approach through Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

There are 5 main international documents that you may look at on R2P:

1.The report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty 2001

2. Report of the United Nations Secretary General on High Level Panel Meetings on Treats, Challenges and Change 2004

3. Report of the UNSG 2005 "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all

4. UN World Summit 2005

5. Report of UNGS 2009, Implementing the R2P

If I may also refer you to an article which I co-authored entitled "New Approaches of Understanding Human Rights: Paradox of Sanctions at the United Nations"

Best regards.

Identify a "successful" intervention that has been labelled "humanitarian". No intervention has had a happy outcome. The list of failed, or unsuccessful, "interventions" is vastly longer than the "successful". Sometimes, indeed most of the time doing "nothing" is the "right  thing". Take Iraq for example. Left alone Hussein would be in his late 80's now and deposed and all the dead that resulted from the "intervention" wouldn't be. What are labelled "humanitarian" interventions have been frauds, nothing more, nothing less.

To my understanding, this is very sensitive, core and the vital or existential problem of modern international public law, particularly in the case of small states and actors in the global politico-legal landscape. I perceive this issue by the prism of modern constitutional dimension and recent trends and doctrines which evolutionary emerged in the field and realm. Especially, I mean the doctrine tilted Responsibility to Protect R2P, as modern scholars argued correctly it primarily covered the issues which particularly before it adopted (2001) correlated to the umbrella of humanitarian intervention. In this insight, I will offer you in my perception truly valuable and newest source in order to rethink and redefine the very issue you raised, I only hope that it will help you tackle your case and business.

BLAGOVESTA TACHEVA and GARRETT WALLACE BROWN (2015). Global

constitutionalism and the responsibility to protect.

Global Constitutionalism, 4, pp 428-467

Please, find attached file.

With best regards,

Karlo Godoladze