One also has to question the 'rationality 'of these criteria in the light of the severity of the possible repercussions and diplomatic fallout. The most acceptable criterion which could justify the use of force in intervention is when the freedom of the state of the safety of its citizens comes under real and tangible threat. However, what is much more questionable are other criteria which are vague and possibly ethically suspect. For example, the view of theorists like Clausewitz that forceful intervention is a tool used by the states to achieve certain political objectives:"….war was merely one means states might employ to achieve objectives set by political authorities" ( Viotti and Kauppi, 2009, chapter 7).

The above perspective, in my point-of-view, is unacceptable as a true criterion for the intervention by force. The reason for the rejection of this criterion is not only on ethical grounds but also refers to the consequences of armed intervention in the specter of nuclear and other forms of warfare. Therefore, the role of the diplomat has in recent years become more emphasized as an alternative to military intervention in recent years in the international global arena. Recent history provides us with some clear examples of intervention for principles other than immediate threat; such as the Vietnam War, which proved to have negative consequences for the country in the long-term.

The only other criterion that justifies armed intervention is when it is unavoidable in serving humanitarian purposes -- such as the prevention of genocide. One definition of humanitarian intervention encapsulates the meaning of this criterion. "Humanitarian Intervention is an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights" ( Soh Star, 2004).

In the light of the above discussion the only criteria that I would view as justification for armed intervention would be direct threat, self-defense...

All these criteria would be dependent on the view that armed intervention should only be taken as a last resort after all diplomatic and other channels have been exhausted. This view is echoed in many studies. "When all diplomacy has been exhausted, when the threat is real, when American lives are in real danger, armed intervention might occur" (Johnson). One has or bear in mind that "…wars are the most destructive of human activities" and that in our present close-knit international political environment, armed intervention may easily escalate into war, with horrendous consequences for the world.