Humanitarian interventions are often justified by a responsibility to protect, but concerns exist that other motives like political interest or geopolitical strategies drive the decisions. The security councils selective approach raises tension between values such as universal rights and state sovereignty. The selective approach could possibly harm the trust of the UN. This study analyses the arguments used in the Libya and Syria cases to understand the ideas of factors like state sovereignty, state interest, human rights and international law and how the ideas cooperate, oppose and influence decisions. This study aims to analyse the security councils justification for humanitarian intervention, focusing on sovereignty, state interest, moral universalism and international law. By comparing Libya and Syria, which reflect examples of when decisions have been made and not, the study also intends to compare how the argumentation differs. The study uses a descriptive discourse analysis as method to address the research questions and achieve the study’s objectives. The material for the study consists of resolutions, the official decisions made by the UN Security Council, and meeting protocols from the years when debates regarding the interventions in these countries were most relevant. The main conclusion of the study is that the UN Security Council justifies humanitarian interventions primarily through responsibility to protect, universal human rights and international law. In Libya the intervention was based on the protection of civilians and international peace, supported by Resolution 1973. In Syria it was different, vetoes and concerns about sovereignty and regional instability led to non-intervention and political divisions was the main reason. The study shows that tension between universal human rights, state sovereignty and states self interest is a fact in the debate. It also shows that international law is playing a crucial role in justifying interventions, but it can also cause selectivity depending on how international law is interpreted.