Purpose: The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the features that have shaped the state's decision-making process in the United Nations, with regard to the humanitarian intervention in Darfur from 2003 onwards. Design/methodology/approach: The methodological approach to the study is a review of political statement papers grounded in the concept of "humanitarian imperialism" and a "responsibility to protect". Findings: It was found out that the decision-making process, leading to humanitarian interventions in Darfur was shaped by a larger extent by the states' own national interests and to a smaller extent by humanitarian considerations. Practical implications: The main implications of this paper are that the United Nations are not the right platform when it comes to humanitarian interventions that should be placed on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, nation states are strongly advised to accept their leading role in international politics and to realise their responsibility to protect foreign citizens in humanitarian catastrophes. Social implications: This paper will have an effect on the way humanitarian interventions and "humanitarian motives" can be seen in society and will suggest that in some situations it is advised to take a more realist approach towards humanitarian interventions. Originality/value: This paper is valuable for further analysis of political decision-making processes and learning processes within politics.