Abstract After intervention and occupation lasting for two decades, the US and their allies left Afghanistan hastily and precipitately. Afghanistan is again ruled by the Taliban who do not seem to be able to provide minimum guarantees of stability and basic human rights protection. These events put into question pivotal international law concepts, such as the Responsibility to Protect or the requirement to provide for transitional justice, brought forward as a justification for intervention and occupation in the first place. This article aims to evidence that these concepts, independently from the terminology chosen, are expression of overarching aims of the State community. Interventions directed at these goals are associated with broader responsibilities both by the interveners as by the State community as a whole. In view of limited intervention and administration capacity, it is crucial to return ownership to the affected populations as soon as possible. Protracted intervention and foreign rule undermines self-determination and the capacity to find a self-reliant way to justice. More attention has also to be devoted to the long-term effects of measures of intervention and the reciprocal interaction between rebuilding activities in the larger sense. It is submitted that attempts to re-engineer a societal fabric as a fighting tool in an ideological struggle creates enhanced responsibility as it undermines self-determination and ownership. A glaring example is the purposeful radicalization of students in Afghan refugee camps.