The 2011 Libyan Uprising was marked by widespread human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and attacks on civilians by both state and non-state actors. These atrocities led to the invocation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine by the United Nations, resulting in a controversial military intervention. While the intervention aimed to protect civilians, it also raised significant legal, political, and operational challenges, questioning the effectiveness and legitimacy of R2P in complex conflict situations. Therefore, this study aims to critically examine the challenges and prospects of applying R2P in cases of gross human rights violations, using Libya as a case study. The study is anchored on two theories within the domain of International Relations: Human Security and Constructivism theories. These frameworks help to analyze the protection of human rights and the international community’s response to humanitarian crises. The study employs a qualitative design, utilizing content analysis to examine relevant literature, UN reports, and scholarly articles on the Libyan Uprising and R2P. The study found that while R2P was effective in preventing immediate atrocities in Libya, but its implementation revealed significant legal ambiguities, political challenges, and operational shortcomings. The intervention led to prolonged instability and civil conflict, highlighting the need for comprehensive post-conflict strategies and consistent application of R2P across different crises. The study recommended that future R2P interventions should integrate robust post-conflict peacebuilding strategies to ensure sustainable stability and prevent the recurrence of violence and human rights abuses