Some states mistreat their own citizens. In selected cases, this has resulted in so called "humanitarian interventions", in which other states (most often the United States or NATO) launched military strikes under the claim that they sought to stop or prevent the slaughter of civilians. These intervention created different reactions amongst scholars, political officials, and the international public. Some emphasize that the interventions violate the international principle of state sovereignty, claiming that this is ultimately a greater risk to international security than how rouge regimes treat their own citizens. Others claim that the violators of fundamental human rights should not be able to hide behind this principle, and that the world cannot stand aside while regimes abuse, and sometimes even commit genocide against their own citizens. They also claim that those who can intervene should do so, even if there is no UN approval. What do you think?