Sammanfattning: A big dilemma in the international politics is how the human rights can be combined with the states’ sovereignty. It has been a problem for a long time for the UN to know how to react when human rights are being violated and when to be able to use a military intervention. The government of Canada established a commission named ICISS to find a solution to this dilemma. The commission presented a report in the end of 2001 called Responsibility to Protect which was accepted as a norm of UN in 2005. The rapport offers solutions for the Security Council in cases of violations of human rights in foreign states. This thesis studies what this report means and examines if it is plausible and desirable from the perspectives of realism, constructivism and liberalism. To test the plausibility and the desirability is it also reviewed if the report can be understood in different ways. It turns out that realism finds the report mostly unplausible and not desirable. The liberalism regards the report as both plausible and desirable but finds that it is failing in some parts. The constructivism reckons the report as plausible but not necessarily desirable. It is also shown that the report can be understood in different ways which reduce its plausibility and desirability. However, the report offers possible solutions to a difficult dilemma and is a serious contribution to the conflict between the state and the individual.