未經授權或同意之武裝人道干涉在聯合國成立之前即已存在，聯合國成立後，此項為救援人權侵害災難之國家干涉行為持續存在。憲章第2條第4款規定，禁止使用武力或以與聯合國宗旨不符之任何其它方法，侵害任何會員國或國家之領土完整或政治獨立。憲章亦規定保障人權為國際間之共同任務。因此，當國際間有嚴重侵害人權之情事，各會員國如果坐視不理，顯然有違憲章第55 條所定促進人權之義務。然而一旦發動未經授權或同意之武力，又違反憲章第2條第4款之規定。第2條第4款禁止使用武力之規定，應不包括武裝人道干涉，因為真誠而具有善意的武裝人道干涉決不會與聯合國宗旨相違，亦非以侵害領土完整或政治獨立為目標。在十九世紀末，國際習慣法已容許武裝人道干涉防止侵害人權。在聯合國成立後，國際社會持續期待人道干涉之合法性，而各國也持續武裝人道干涉的行為。武裝人道干涉的案例顯示各國普遍確信武裝人道救援合於國際習慣法。本文就人道干涉之定義，採取中立之解釋，並對武裝人道干涉適法性之肯定說及否定說加以評析，同時探討武裝人道干涉之案例及當事國之主張，末提出合法性之政策考量。基於聯合國憲章及國際習慣法，本文主張未經授權之武裝人道干涉，在特定條件下為進一步保障人權之合法機制。

U.N. Charter obligates states members refrain from use of force in international relationship, and use of force is prohibited except in self-defense and authorization by U.N. Charter also sets forth human rights as a matter of international legal commitment. Therefore, when "gross abuses of human rights" happened in international community, if states members sit and see without any kind of intervention, it is arguable that the obligation to promote human rights provided by Charter Article 55 is breached. But once unauthorized force is used, it is clearly that Article 2(4) is violated.From the contextual framework of U.N. Charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, use of force in defense of human rights in extreme cases is absolutely justified not only morally but also legally. It is also well established in customary international law that when fundamental human rights are denied and
such denial shocks the conscience of mankind, intervention in the interest of humanity is legally permissible. By analyzing arguments for and against the legality of unauthorized armed humanitarian intervention, this note espouses that unauthorized armed humanitarian intervention is a legal mechanism for further protection of human rights.