| The clash between principle of non-intervention and humanitarian intervention has been discussed for centuries. A State does not have any right to intervene other State’s domestic matters. The question arises when heinous crimes, such as war crimes and or crimes against humanity, are committed in a sovereign State, should the world be ignorant or start intervening to protect the citizens there? In 2001, the question was answered by the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, which was proposed by International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The doctrine attributes States with the primary responsibility to protect its citizens from humanitarian catastrophe. Only when that responsibility had not been exercised, would the international community’s responsibility be engaged. In exercising the responsibility, international community must have exhausted all other methods including diplomatic solution, before choosing the humanitarian intervention option as a choice. In this research, author seeks to explain the implementation of this doctrine in Syrian Conflict. Firstly, author will categorize the conflict in Syria by fulfilling the threshold of Non-International Armed Conflict, as elaborated by International Criminal Tribunal for The Former Yugoslavia. Secondly, author will prove the position of Syria as Pillar 3 State, which needs to be intervened by international community due to its failure of protecting its citizen. Finally, author will analyze the situations of the conflict, as to whether the conflict fulfills the criteria to be intervened under doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. |