This thesis seeks to analyze the phenomenon of increasing multipolarity in the global environment vis-à-vis the conduct of humanitarian intervention. Established powers, including the United States and United Kingdom, and rising, predominantly developing states seem at odds over where to intervene, when, and on what basis. Situating this conflict within the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, which has been the guiding international framework for intervention over the past decade-and-a-half, the research answers whether the processes of multipolarity will ultimately lead to the reconciliation of nation-state interests (cooperation) or unreconciled divergence (competition). Using United Nations Security Council resolutions to temporally track multipolarity and map nations’ language into the rhetorical spaces of humanitarianism and inclinations toward intervention, the research finds support for the proposition that concepts of humanitarian intervention between great and rising powers are more conflictual. Furthermore, nations appear to be clustering into “camps” along broadly humanitarian/interventionist and state sovereigntist lines. To preserve humanitarian intervention in a more multipolar world, its proponents must accommodate diverse nation-state interests, facilitate improved relations among the member states of the U.N. Security Council, and empower regional bodies as partners in alleviating conflict under an R2P mandate.