This article examines Terry Nardin's account of the legitimacy of huma
nitarian intervention. Nardin argues that states ought to adopt a pres
umption against intervention in the affairs of another state but he cl
aims that, under certain circumstances, this presumption may be overri
dden to further human rights. This article calls into question both hi
s defence of the norm of nonintervention and his account of when human
itarian intervention is legitimate. It argues that his proposals do no
t go far enough and that a cosmopolitan theory of intervention is more
plausible.