Why did supporters of humanitarian intervention argue that sovereignty should not protect governments that abuse human rights?

Supporters of humanitarian intervention argue that state sovereignty should not be treated as an absolute shield for governments that commit widespread human rights abuses. In the post-Cold War era, this perspective gained significant traction, challenging the traditional view that sovereignty is sacrosanct.1

The core of this argument rests on the ethical imperative to protect individuals from systematic violations, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced expulsions. Advocates contend that when a government fails to protect its people—or is itself the perpetrator of such abuses—it forfeits the protection typically afforded by sovereignty. Consequently, the international community is viewed as having a moral obligation to intervene to stop these atrocities, prioritizing individual human rights over the traditional state right to non-interference.1

This shift represents a move away from the view of sovereignty as unrestricted power, emphasizing instead that states are bound by fundamental rules and responsibilities toward their citizens and the international community.12