The present work focuses on how the use of language by the Member States of the United Nation´s Security Council during the decision making for humanitarian interventions in the post Cold War period, can come to mean different things in different scenarios. For this job we have used analytical tools concepts from Wittgenstein´s Philosophy of Language, such as language games, in order to investigate the relationship between language and things within the dynamics process of meaning constructing. The investigation space is represented by the Security Council forum and the negotiations of the possibility of interventions and its terms are the main focus of the work. The dissertation starts out by characterizing the practice of humanitarian interventions, and in addition, pointing out the absence of a conceptual definition for its identification. According to the theoretical framework adopted in the present work, language carries within its words a natural open texture when investigated the relationship between words and things, and therefore, meaning can only be constructed within a language game. By following Wittgenstein´s idea of the language games dynamics we can begin to understand how can the same words, such as the main concepts that construct the meaning of the practice of humanitarian interventions, can mean different thing in different contexts, and therefore, start to wonder if a codification of a rule for humanitarian intervention can possibly do more harm then the absence of it.