The suitability of unilateral humanitarian intervention constituting a third exception to the prohibition on the use of force is controversial since it actualizes the tension between the target state’s right to sovereignty and universal protection of human rights. This study employs a positivist method to assess the levels of compatibility of a unilateral humanitarian intervention with the target state’s right to territorial integrity and political independence as well as the United Nations’ purpose of promoting and encouraging respect for human rights enshrined in article 1(3) of the Charter of the United Nations. Secondarily, the study examines whether the so called Responsibility to Protect influences these levels of compatibility. First, the study concludes that a unilateral humanitarian intervention is compatible with the target state’s right to territorial integrity if it is performed for humanitarian purposes and does not affect is borders. Second, it concludes that a unilateral humanitarian intervention is not compatible with the target state’s right to political independence since it inevitably limits the executive power of the target state. Third, it concludes that a unilateral humanitarian intervention is not compatible with article 1(3) since an intervention seeks to protect human rights, while article 1(3) only stipulates a vague commitment to promote and encourage respect for human rights. Moreover, the study concludes that the Responsibility to Protect strengthens the compatibility of a unilateral humanitarian intervention with the target state’s right to territorial integrity by declaring that the international community may be entitled to intervene in the target state to protect the human rights of its population, while not stipulating a right to violate the borders of the target state. As regards the compatibility between a unilateral humanitarian intervention and the target state’s right to political independence, the Responsibility to Protect affirms the view that these are not compatible. Last, although the Responsibility to Protect strengthens the view that the United Nations is committed to the universal protection of human rights, it is equally incompatible with article 1(3) since it also uses the term protect and thus affirms the incompatibility of unilateral humanitarian intervention with article 1(3).