Abstract

The concept of “the responsibility to protect (R2P)” has been the focus of ongoing discussion on a global scale. Many problems are raised by the improper application of R2P in Libya in 2011 and non-implementation in Syria and Myanmar. Arbitrary application of international law is fundamental threat to the R2P concept, which has expanded the gap between moral principles and their application in international politics. In spite of having bad consequences, R2P has sacred goals to save the people suffering from distress like crime against humanity, war crime, genocide, ethnic cleansing within the country. It limits the absolute sovereignty of Westphalia. The R2P document redefines sovereignty as responsibility rather than allowing sovereignty to be used as a license to kill. Therefore, despite of having flaws of R2P doctrine as improperly applied, we cannot pass a verdict of rejection because the R2P theory is still in effect under Chapters VI and VII of the United Nations Charter, as guaranteed by the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. The R2P theory hasn’t established clear guidelines for how to intervene in a state’s internal affairs, it is necessary to reconsider it. In order to achieve the goals of international peace and justice, R2P must be applied according to certain key criteria, which are attempted to be addressed in this paper.