The case for the illegality of the law is based on various articles of the Charter which do not sufficiently address humanitarian intervention creating confusion on the application of concepts within the laws. According to article 2 (4) of the Charter, the use of force by states is outlawed in the case of cross border military action. The use or lack of use of force does not really cover the cues for the implementation of humanitarian activities. According to Hurd, (2011) the illegality of the using force against other nations not only includes military attacks but also the threats of using force against the nation. The use of humanitarian intervention to use force in other nations therefore lacks a definition especially if the nation is a third party entity in the conflict. The unjust military action against a nation may therefore be justified as a humanitarian interference. However the UN Charter laws provides that other nations should be able to intervene in the event of a war where one nation has been acting brutally to attack the sovereignty of other nations.Pattison, (2010)point out that the main idea of the UN and its Charter laws were to end war completely. In fact the Security Council was primarily meant to deal with nations which went apart from the agreements that nations should not war with each other again.
瑞典于1976年对以色列的恩德培事件作出的反应将进一步消除人道主义干预的合法性，特别是出于任何原因使用武力。 根据瑞典政府的说法，“宪章”允许任何准备好的国家干预战争或国家对另一个国家采取野蛮行为。 事实上，只有在一个国家安全理事会正在执行和国家自卫行动的情况下，法律才是正确的。 在这个解释中出现的一些主要问题是，一些支持英国等人道主义干涉的国家实际在一定程度上侵蚀到东道国的主权。 比如法森＆潘多菲的例子，英国介入阿尔巴尼亚境内使用导弹和其他军事行动。
The Swedish reaction to Israeli Entebbe incidents in 1976 would further nullify the legality of humanitarian intervention, particularly involving the use of force for any reason whatsoever. According to the Swedish government, the Charter allows for any ready nation to intervene in a war or a situation in which a nation is acting brutally against another. In fact the law stands only in the case where a nation is acting on official enforcements implemented by the Security Council and actions in self-defense on the part of the state. Some of the primary issues that emerged concerning this interpretation was that some of the nations that championed for humanitarian intervention such as Britain were actually attacking the sovereignty of the hosts to some level. An example from Fassin & Pandolfi, (2010) includes the intervention of Britain into the Albanian conflicts where there was use of missiles and other military actions in the territory.
人道主义干预法也涉及全世界维护基本人权的问题。但是，关于基本人权的法律并没有对“宪章”的签署方承诺实施维护人权的政策或任何形式的行动作出任何强制性要求。由于宪章进一步阻止了对国家主权的干涉，叛乱派别在国际社会的存在或不存在的情况下可能面临高度的致命威胁。 “联合国宪章”第55条引用了“联合国对一个人的基本权利和尊严”的信赖。同样的法律在分配给各国的法律承诺方面还包含了更为模棱两可的背景，以至于不能完全禁止使用武力。此外，没有任何法律可以界定或修改禁止使用武力的一般规定。 Holzgrefe＆Keohane（2003）认为，“宪章”的形成包括最近参战的国家之间的妥协和谈判，并面临着使大多数国家处于经济法的损失。因此，利用这些含糊之处反对本组织禁止战争，将立即对法律的影响和范围作出解释。。
The laws on humanitarian intervention are also concerned with the preservation of fundamental human rights in the whole world. However, the laws on fundamental human rights do not place any obligatory requirements on the commitment of the signatories to the charter to implement policies or any form of action that up holds the human rights. With the charter further disallowing interference into the sovereignty of the nation there is a high chance that rebelling factions may face lethal force with or without the presence of the international community. Article 55 (c ) bears the famous quote from the Charter that the UN has “faith in the fundamental rights and the dignity” of a person (Weiss, 2016). The same law includes further ambiguous contexts in terms of the legal commitment assigned to nations such that the use of force is not completely disallowed. Furthermore, there are no laws which define or modify the general prohibition of the use of force. According toHolzgrefe & Keohane, (2003), the formation of the Charter involved compromise and negotiations between the states which had recently been to war and were facing losses which kept most of the countries at an economic law. Therefore the use of these ambiguities against the ban on war by the organization would have led to immediate interpretation of the implications and scope of the laws.