Rättfärdiganden för humanitär intervention - Hur och varför skiljer de sig åt?

The purpose of this thesis was to compare different theories surrounding humanitarian intervention and maybe find what makes these theories reach the same conclusions, that humanitarian intervention can be permitted even though they argue so differently and what it is that makes them so divided in some questions. The method employed in this thesis is inductive method, and a framework for analysis is developed. The dimensions I find useful to this problem are; sovereignty, chaos and order in the international system, authority, motives, cases for intervention, means and outcome. The normative theories I apply the framework to are representative for different schools in international relations; cosmopolitan liberalism, communitarian, English school and realism, they are also chosen after how well known they are. My conclusion is that it is the different perspectives on the international system and the state that makes them divided, how they come to the same conclusion is still unclear though