The ethics and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is often questioned, with a nations real intentions often being unknown, and this has led to beliefs that it may be used as a façade to disguise neocolonialism occurring. The idea of humanitarian intervention was publicised and reworked by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) name, as now used by the UN. Within the released report The Responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention was discussed, looking at the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive  and in particular military  action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state. (ICISS, 200). The R2P doctrine now exists as an endorsed obligation by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly following the 2005 World Summit (UN, 2005). Humanitarian intervention and humanitarian aid are linked by some to colonialism due to the economic influence of some nations upon states in need of humanitarian support following the period of instability. Historically, the colonial project was seen to act in two ways: direct military control or imperialism, and indirect political control with ideological hegemony being pressed upon nations. This definition has now changed greatly to involve the passive use of globalisation, cultural hegemony and capitalism to engage and influence a developing country. It is in this context, as well as looking at remnants of historical colonialism, that this essay shall identify if the colonial project is still ongoing through humanitarian intervention as its medium. This will aim to break
down the moral justification of humanitarian intervention through the R2P doctrine to see if this is still truthful and legitimately being employed. To this aim, within the essay examination of any unjust deployments of humanitarian intervention and their justifications will occur as well as looking at if the implementation of the R2P doctrine within the neo-liberal global climate has improved or exacerbated any national or regional crises as an unintended consequence and how this may result in human rights impacts. Secondly, the essay will look at the main actors involved in humanitarian aid and how it is often implemented by these actors, looking at the Just War Theory (IEP) as a guideline. This can then be used to compare historical colonialism and neocolonialism as some scholars argue is now taking place. This can be analysed to see if these key actors are putting the domestic affairs of the country and its citizens first in returning the conflicted nation to a state of peace. The conclusion will suggest that due to globalisation, colonialism cannot be defined as it historically has been in the past with the existence of imperial nations. As a result, those who believe that the spread of cultural hegemony is a form of neocolonialism may argue that the colonial project is ongoing. The project as imagined however with many international colonies forming part of an imperial nation cannot be seen to be realistic anymore and so this may suggest that the question should not be regarding a colonial project and the historical discourse related to this, but looking at the new forms of colonialism and national hegemony which international superpowers may wish to achieve.