After the fall of the Berlin Wall, military intervention in other people’s wars spawned a new theme in international relations combining the desire to enhance conflict-solving mechanisms with ambitions for developing a true « transformational diplomacy » capable of changing and improving political regimes in other countries. In the euphoria of a post-bipolar world, the enterprise seemed ambitious but promising ; it turned sovereign convention on its head, but also revived the dual idea of a global police force and emancipation for the suffering. The culmination of this intellectual and political process was undoubtedly the central notion of the responsibility to protect, framed in 2001. Yet the results have been far from convincing. An end more than a means, with outcomes resembling exercises in power more than regulation, the practice has seen more than its share of failures and pernicious effects, and most of all, a huge disconnect with respect to the kind of new conflicts it is meant to resolve. The resulting disorder, often underplayed, raises three as yet unanswered questions about this approach : who has the authority to intervene, how, and why ?