The Responsibility to Protect doctrine represents a significant evolution in international relations, emphasizing the international community's duty to intervene in cases of mass atrocities, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This thesis explores the intricate balance between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention, analysing the political, legal, and ethical dimensions that influence the application of Responsibility to Protect. By delving into key documents such as the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty report from 2001 and various international charters, as well as conducting case studies of Libya, Syria and Yemen, this study highlights the inconsistencies of the implementation of Responsibility to Protect, driven by geopolitical interests and the selective enforcement by powerful states. The thesis reviews the current international legal framework, focusing on the role of the United Nations Security Council and the impact of the veto power held by the permanent members. By examining the theoretical underpinnings of realism and liberalism the research offers a nuanced understanding of the challenges and discusses recommendations for enhancing the efficacy and equity of R2P. This study aims to deepen the discourse on global governance, including humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty and the veto power.