Article Details

This study interrogates the divergent outcomes of humanitarian interventions in Sudan and Sierra Leone, raising critical questions about why international efforts succeeded in the latter but faltered in the former. The central problem this research addresses is the inconsistency of global humanitarian engagement: why do similar intervention frameworks yield stability in one context yet exacerbate crisis in another? Adopting a qualitative analytical methodology and the historical method of data collection, the study draws on both primary and secondary sources. It employs the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Theory and Human Security Theory to frame its analysis. In Sudan, despite the presence of over 125 humanitarian organisations, including the Sudanese American Physicians’ Association (SAPA), HOPE Sudan, UNFPA, USAID, OCHA, and the ICRC, restricted access, inadequate funding, and delayed diplomatic responses undermined interventions. The ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has displaced over 10 million people, with aid workers facing lethal risks and peacekeepers unable to safeguard civilians. These cases highlight fragmented international engagement and a lack of coherent strategy. Conversely, Sierra Leone illustrates how timely deployment, mediation, and collaboration through UNAMSIL and ECOWAS helped disarm rebels and rebuild governance structures, despite initial logistical challenges. The contrast between these cases underscores uneven humanitarian outcomes and highlights the need for strategic coordination, local engagement, and sustained international commitment. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that without coherent strategies and contextual sensitivity, humanitarian interventions risk deepening crises rather than resolving them.