The topic of this paper is the crisis of liberal interventionism. The question that arises is that of the effectiveness of interventionism and whether it makes sense. The answer to that question depends first and foremost on the cause of the intervention. After the Cold war, west liberals believed that their values were truly universal and that liberal democracy as such no longer had real competition. This belief was strongly supported by Francis Fukuyama and his claim about „The End of History“. On the basis of this assumption, due to its universal reach, the doctrine of liberal interventionism has also appeared which states that it is morally justified to intervene in those countries and societies that do not live by liberal principles. „The Clash of Civilizations“ by Samuel Huntington offers argumentation on why it is sometimes difficult to intervene in countries that do not have similar values to Western values and that belong to different cultures. We have seen the effectiveness of liberal interventionism through the example of two interventions; in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iraq. If you intervene to prevent war or the killing of innocent people, intervention can be successful. If you intervene to change the political regime and spread democracy, it cannot succeed, because the existing institutions are being toppled off with no structures left behind. This consequently leaves empty space for new conflicts to emerge as well as the appearance of new extremist organizations as was evident with the case of Iraq. In the end, this paper also dealt with the fact that the international community has solved the question when it is justifiable to intervene. That happened at the 2005 UN World Summit where 170 countries supported the agreement which commits the international community to intervening in the case of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Liberal interventionism is a powerful tool that can be very effective if the intentions of those who intervene are noble and sincere.