As a response to massive human rights disasters that took place in the 1990s, such as those in Bosnia or Rwanda, a new principle of „responsibility to protect“ (RtoP) was introduced. The RtoP principle was intended to replace the so-far existing and rather controversial concept of humanitarian intervention and to offer states a legal basis for undertaking military actions in order to protect human rights in states in which those very rights are jeopardized by the regime in power. Being based on the notion that states have, on one hand, the responsibility to protect their own people and that the international community, on the other hand, has the responsibility to offer that protection in case of failure of individual states to do so, the RtoP has brought into question some of the most important principles of international law, primarily those of state sovereignty and of non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign states. While there has been a consensus among the majority of states and legal scholars that humanitarian interventions have not become the part of customary law, this paper focuses on examining the effect of the new concept of RtoP on international law. It seeks to explore the notion of RtoP and how it differs from humanitarian intervention, as well as to analyze the attitude of states and international bodies towards it. Subsequently, the conclusion on the current status of the RtoP in international law is reached.