In my opinion, during a crisis situation there are three concepts that interplay to result in the atrocities: conflict, violence and war. Conflict being an ongoing struggle between two or more parties may lead to violence which can either be direct by inflicting physical pain or injury, or it may be structural via oppression, exploitation or domination. An ongoing systemic political violence between these parties is what we refer to as a war. An intervention is vital in every stage; as a matter of fact intervening during a conflict situation between parties can prevent the potential inhumanity and savagery that are the constituents of wars and in some cases genocide. Because of the anarchic system of the international community and the sovereign rights of states, methods of intervention have to be carefully structured so as not to breach the sovereign rights of states and aggravate conflict situations. It is normal to expect states to resolve conflicts between themselves and to prevent and control violence. However when violence escalates to a point where neither the sovereign states nor the parties involved can control the atrocities and the inhumane acts to innocent civilians, then an immediate intervention from the international community is highly vital. The United Nations (Security Council) should come to a quick and concise decision on how to protect the right of the civilians and to resolve the conflicts that lead to the violence, bringing justice where needed. An intervention should never be debated in situations where the lives and livelihoods of fellow humans are at stake. Even though an intervention does come with its limitations , the end goal of saving lives is of a greater importance when it comes the question; is humanitarian intervention relevant in resolving violent disputes?
To begin with I would like to use an example from personal experience, where the intervention of a coalition of neighboring countries brought hope to many victims...