「不干預」向來是國際政治上的通則，因為維護與遵守這個原則，不僅可以保障他國的生存，同時也可以成為本國生存的保障，儘管在過去的實踐中，這個原則時常遭到破壞，但很明顯皆被認定是違反聯合國憲章與國際法的，故皆為非法的行為，僅能稱之為國際政治中弱肉強食的無奈，而無法成為國際上的慣例。冷戰結束後，美國運用其在蘇聯解體後無與倫比的綜合國力，挾著北約雄厚的實力，使用集體安全的力量，對個別受指控違反人權的主權國家進行了公開的軍事干預，打破了1648年以來傳統國家主權至高無上的基本態勢，而人道干預也似乎成為新的國際法慣例。本文所要探討的，不是美式軍事干預的合法性問題，也不是要探討美國霸權的興衰，而是將焦點擺到了位於西歐一隅的幾個區域性強權—英、法、德三國身上，分析其在後冷戰時期波士尼亞—赫塞哥維納、科索沃兩個重要的國際衝突中所持的立場與作為，並探究此三強權態度轉變背後代表的意義以及國際政治中以人道為由所進行之未經授權軍事干預行為的影響。 ＂Non-Intervention＂ is an international political general principle. Protecting and obeying this principle not only ensures one's existence, but also others. Although the non-intervention principle had sometimes been challenged and violated in the past, these actions were no doubt illegal and against the ＂Charter of United Nation＂ and existing international laws. It can only be said that ＂the weak is the prey of the strong＂ and as a result, cannot become a convention in international laws. However, in the post-Cold War era after the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States, with her incomparable power and NATO's solid strength, proceeded humanitarian interventions in several countries that were charged against human right. Those actions had clearly overturned the 1648 treaty of Westphalia, which upheld the right of sovereign states to act freely within their own borders, and the right of humanitarian intervention in cases where governments fail their own people seems to become a new fashion of international laws. In this paper, we will not talk about the legality problem of the American military intervention or the rise and decline of American hegemony. We will focus on the great powers in Western Europe, namely France, Germany and the United Kingdom. By analyzing their positions and actions in a series of military interventions in the Bosnia and Kosovo crises, it is expected to realize the implications of the trend that humanitarian intervention might in some extreme circumstances override sovereignty on the international system today.
