Nothing in international human rights law authorizes the use of force by outsiders to protect rights. However, it has been proposed by some countries and commentators that severe or mass human rights violations should justify the use of force against a state. Today, such "humanitarian intervention" is often conflated with the rubric of the ”responsibility to protect,” although the United Nations has limited “R2P” only to preventing mass crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. Even then, the UN has stated that armed intervention requires with the authorization of the UN Security Council. Although one may bemoan the suffering of people in Rwanda in 1994 or Syria since 2011, the use of force is more likely to result in chaos and widespread killings, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, rather than protecting human rights properly understood. War is problematic, to say the least, and asking military forces to create the conditions to end discrimination, foster economic development, ensure democracy, and guarantee the full panoply of human rights is foolish and dangerous.