Could humanitarian intervention fuel the conflict instead of ending it?

An unpleasant truth overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can solve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. This study empirically analyzes whether these arguments are supported by evidence on recent military interventions. In our analysis, the effect of military intervention on deterioration risk is not highly significant and considerable. At peak, danger—the risk of state collapse—is about 38%, whereas a country with no intervention has a risk of 19%. R2P doctrine, however, developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 with the avowed objectives of protecting humans from mass atrocities and other crimes, is theoretically defective, which will continue to be limited. To avoid arbitrary intervention, we should restructure the philosophy of the R2P to one with which any society of any age can agree and pursue a “minimalist-institutional approach.”