Looking for the effective measures to prevent systematic violations of human rights and core crimes of international law, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in December 2001 released the report “Responsibility to protect”. It embraces three specific responsibilities: a) to prevent - to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other crises putting populations at risk ; b) to react – to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution, and in extreme cases military intervention ; c) to rebuild – to provide, particularly after a military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert. Taking into consideration the core foundations of international community, its origin of state sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, and the prohibition of (even) threat and/or using force in mutual relationship, on one side, but also the general idea of obligation to protect human rights, on the other – question arises: is there a base of justification for one (or more) state(s) to use force against other state for the humanitarian purpose, at all?