The Brezhnev Doctrine was formulated when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in the spring 1968. To defend their actions the Soviets advanced an interpretation of sovereignty according to which true sovereignty wasn't possible outside a Communist setting. They also seemed to think that the global communist commonwealth was in fact some kind of a sovereign entity. The Clinton Doctrine on the other hand refers to the US operations in Kosovo during 1999. It has to do with the relatively new idea of humanitarian interventions, according to it a state loses its right to sovereignty if it fails to protect or systematically violates the rights of its citizens. Both interpretations are clearly visible in the international declarations of the time. Although the Clinton Doctrine has some serious problems, especially like the lack and impossibility of universality and the dangers of state fragmentation, the changes in the international atmosphere that led to its adoption are real and here to stay. They include the end of the Cold War and the consequent change in the types of conflicts, the pressure put by globalization on state's traditional power, and the way media is changing the way foreign policy can be made and national interests are perceived. In addition, the two doctrines seemed to differ because of the political setting in which they were conducted. Although its democratic nature might have made the Clinton Doctrine more acceptable, it also made it less effective and less well established. The two doctrines also had a lot in common. The most important common characteristic was the strong use of ideology to justify seemingly illegal actions. They also share a great power way of thinking and the idea that sovereignty should be interpreted differently between different kinds of states. Accordingly many different theories on sovereignty have been used to aid in the comparison.