Problem 1: Why selective humanitarian intervention often considered problematic? Which would be preferable, selective intervention or consistent nonintervention?
Problem 2: Would other nations ever be justified intervening in U.S. domestic affairs to prevent what they perceive as violations of human rights?
Problem 3: How does the doctrine of a "responsibility to protect" reflect and extend traditional arguments of humanitarian intervention?
Problem 4: Why is the doctrine of popular sovereignty so central to the case of humanitarian intervention?
Problem 5: Why does the United Nations play such a large role in debates over humanitarian intervention?