The theoretical debate over the legality of forcible PNA has not offered solid conclusions as to its foundations. The doctrine has largely been shaped by state practice. In numerous incidents states have invoked the doctrine as a legal basis for their recourse to force. These case studies are enlightening as they demonstrate how states perceive the forcible protection of their nationals abroad. Also, they demonstrate the fine line between the doctrine’s justified employment and its abuse as a pretext for military operations. From 1945 onwards, recourse to force in the name of nationals’ protection has been almost exclusively the privilege of powerful states with the financial resources and military capacity to conduct such operations. The UNCh has offered the ultimate guarantees of legitimacy on such occasions. The UN regime’s provisions for collective self-defense and the overall culture authorizing the use of force have been counterweights to unilateral, and potentially illegitimate, state practice. To classify these incidents in the post-Charter period, one could proceed with four categories, namely, use of force to protect nationals abroad during the decolonization process (a), the doctrine’s employment in combination with American policy (b), the Entebbe raid (c), and British state practice which has evolved mostly over recent years (d). This categorization does not entirely follow the historical route of military operations from 1945 onwards. Rather, it is an attempt to group the most important interpretations of the doctrine according to state practice.