The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after disasters such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure that such a large-scale tragedy never happens again more. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. According to R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be forced to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various cases where nations disagreed with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as an avenue for major world powers to encroach on another state's sovereignty, which could divide Security Council members. Furthermore, if implemented regularly, R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation. For this reason, not all of the international community disagrees and is therefore not obliged to act. Many states will not consider action when a tragedy occurs, due to mistrust and ongoing suspicions regarding these plans. This ultimately devalues ​​the authenticity and purpose of R2P. First, my article will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Second, the effectiveness of R2P and its relationship with different members of the United Nations, followed by case studies. Finally, a brief analysis will conclude the document. The doctrine of responsibility to protect is a United Nations (UN) initiative created to prevent the act of genocide (United Nations, 2014. p. 1). According to the guidelines, states must maintain the utmost duty to stop and pre...... middle of paper ...... doctrine has been the subject of controversy and debate since its creation in the immediate aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. Many nations hoped it would put an end to tragedies like the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust forever. Although it has good intentions, the terms of the document are too unrealistic as they require members of the international community to intervene and bind themselves to it. The international community will not feel obliged to act especially in cases where its political ideals conflict with the task at hand. Furthermore, states will have different opinions on how to solve the problem. A doctrine could be favored by states that could benefit from the outcome, such as the American plan to use force as opposed to the Russian idea of ​​leaving the Syrians to their own devices. In conclusion, the R2P doctrine will remain and divide nations for many decades to come.