It is a major problem that leading states and institutions that actually have the potential to make and implement decisions on the global scale remain inefficient in resolving the humanitarian and human rights related crises of the world. The current world order, which was most recently shaped after World War II, if we put aside the slight change after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has not introduced any change in turning the world into a more livable place.The genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda belong to the recent past, proving that modern civilization could not overcome the danger of transcendental violence. Genocide did not only happen in the remote ends of Africa, but also in Europe. The U.N. remained a mere spectator to mass murders in a tragic way. The disaster in Bosnia did not reach a further level with the initiative of the U.S., but the harm done was already beyond measurable levels. It can be said that there were some efforts in this regard. The U.N. endeavored to develop some mechanisms by seeing that its reason for existence had died out. The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was one of these mechanisms.This doctrine was accepted by the U.N. in 2005 and was based on two main principles: 1) "Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means." 2) "The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means ... to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, [the U.N. will] take collective action ... through the Security Council ... should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." R2P was developed in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights laws and charged the U.N. with three responsibilities: Preventing, reacting and rebuilding.If the concerned country is unable to cease its internal chaos, the U.N. uses its resources to aid the country. But if the country's administration deliberately fails to protect its population, it is warned in various ways and diplomatic methods are implemented to resolve the problem. However, if these initiatives fall short, the U.N. intervenes in the country as a requirement of the R2P.After the intervention, the U.N. is in charge of what happens in the country.The R2P did not emerge spontaneously. It is the outcome of a process of maturation. In 2001, when it was first presented to the U.N. Commission, the failure of the U.N. regarding the genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda during the 1990s was shown as a reason. The U.N. has become an institution dominated and rendered ineffective by the leading countries since the first days of its foundation. During the 1990s, it faced a serious predicament. Its disbandment was even brought to the agenda.The U.N. should have prepared legal and practical grounds for a similar sudden and responsible reaction in possible future cases by taking lessons from its previous experiences. From 2001 to 2005, the year when the R2P was accepted, this doctrine was negotiated by member countries and nongovernmental organizations and a consensus was achieved in the principles mentioned above. Turkey was also among these countries. However, full alliance of the five permanent members on the U.N. Security Council is required for the U.N. to carry this out. Consequently, the U.N.'s duty of intervening in incidents all around the world in which civilians are harmed is actually defined, but the upper structure of the U.N., which can be regarded as the elite segment of the institution, does not often allow it.Doesn't the U.N., who only watches the mass murder of 300,000 civilians in Syria, contradict itself with its main goal? Seemingly, it does. It is not possible to continue the 21st century with an incapable institution like the U.N.