Even if one uses the previous five sets, they must decide the percentage of importance and relevance to assign to each criterion. It as such becomes understandable why peoples or states use the same decisional framework and come to inconsistent results. Personally, I would place the most emphasis on human rights and would generally decide in favor of an armed intervention in countries where more cases of human rights breaches are registered. Secondly, I would also look at the United States' interests and...

How could it benefit or harm us? Third, I would seek international acceptance, support and cooperation from other sovereign states. The final element I would consider is not present in the five set decision criteria, but I hold it pivotal. It would consist of an analysis of the diplomatic efforts in the region. I would trail the discussions and their outcomes; I would demand intensified efforts and only launch an armed intervention when diplomacy has failed.