Humanitarian intervention challenges state sovereignty but can be justified under the UN Charter when there are serious human rights violations like genocide or crimes against humanity. However, it must follow UN Security Council approval to maintain international law and prevent misuse.

The question of whether humanitarian intervention should override state sovereignty under the UN Charter is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides. The UN Charter, while emphasizing state sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs, also recognizes the need for international action to protect fundamental human rights. The debate centers on finding a balance between these competing principles.

Humanitarian intervention should not automatically override state sovereignty under the UN Charter, as the Charter prioritizes respect for sovereignty and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. However, many argue that when a government commits grave human rights abuses, intervention may be justified to protect fundamental rights, though this remains a contentious and unresolved issue in international law

Humanitarian intervention should be allowed to override state sovereignty under the UN Charter only in extreme cases where there are gross human rights violations, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing, and when all peaceful means have failed. While the UN Charter upholds state sovereignty, it also emphasizes the protection of human rights. A carefully regulated and internationally sanctioned intervention, preferably through the UN Security Council, can strike a necessary balance between respecting sovereignty and upholding global moral responsibility.