After the end of Cold War, the concept of humanitarian intervention has emerged as a controversial issue in the field of International Relations and among the states. Indeed, an objective definition or legal document about the concept has not been made up until now. However, basic elements of humanitarian intervention have been tried to be identified in international law by the supporter of the intervention on behalf of its legitimacy. It is also emphasized that certain circumstances must have occurred so that an intervention decision can be made up. Humanitarian intervention has been applied and justified against governments enforcing intensive systematic violations of human rights and state terror. The role of United Nations Security Council in the scope of humanitarian intervention is a matter of debate while it is supposed to have an active role on international peace-keeping process. It is also known that NATO made decisions to apply force in Kosovo and Libya examples under the name of humanitarian intervention. These decisions of NATO resulted in discussions on humanitarian intervention in terms of international law. Due to its nature including use of force, it is necessary to find out whether the intervention is legal according to international law or not. As a result of current conditions, this study deeply analyses the legal dimensions of humanitarian intervention relating with rules regulating the use of force (jus ad bellum). In this context, the claims of both the supporters and the objectors of the interventions are taken into consideration, and it is tried to identify the place of humanitarian intervention within customary law and treaties. Being studied the cases of Kosovo and Libya or the developments in Syria, and international law in practice, it is seen that there is not any accepted law justifying the humanitarian intervention. Consequently, this study claims that humanitarian intervention does not supply a basement for any state or international organization to intervene in another state.