This comparative research studied the P5 (Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) statements to investigate the causes for the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) application in Libya and nonapplication in Syria. The research studied 25 full statements for the P5 during five meetings for the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) between 2011-2012. Post the Arab Spring, the Libyan and Syrian cases were similar since both states experienced large-scale crimes against civilians, and their governments failed their duty to protect, and the UNSC called to protect civilians, however, the outcomes differentiated in the two cases. This research employed multiple theories to investigate the causes for different outcomes, and the findings show that the R2P applied in Libya since the P5 had a similar vision to protect civilians and similar experiences and perceptions towards the norm (R2P). However, in Syria, the R2P did not apply, due to (1) the Libyan experience, (2) the P5 security interests, and (3) due to the P5 conflicting stances. The R2P can only be authorized by the UNSC, and the three previously mentioned causes caused a division in the UNSC and that caused the UNSC to become unable to authorize the R2P in Syria.