The study presents the philosophical foundation of the principle of "responsibility to protect" defined in literature and contemporary English reflection as responsibility to protect or "RtoP" or "R2P". This new axiological problem, which prompts us to distinguish, apart from the already traditional right to war (ius ad bellum) indicating "its just causes", military and humanitarian law (ius in bello) defining the permissible methods of its conduct, (ius post bellum) pointing to " just "its ending, also of the new law and international custom, namely the right to anti-war (in Toffler's sense) or" pre-emptive war ". The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect tries to build the foundations of this right to anti-war or responsible protection, prevention or intervention. Doctrine developed in 2001, presented by the Commission for State Intervention and Sovereignty (ICISS) - established by the Canadian government to respond to massive violations of human rights and the spread of the so-called unstructured conflicts is, in its expanded form, the present UN doctrine. According to the author, in the principle of "responsibility for intervention" ("R2P") one can find repercussions of the old regulations of the right to war, the law in war and the law after the war, and even their modern specification.