This dissertation offers a critical analysis of the discourse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). For this, I follow the poststructuralist understanding of language as performativity, i.e., I understand that language in use (discourse) has a role in the process of construction of subjectivities. I adopt Richard Ashley s structure of analysis of double reading to problematize the discourse of R2P. In the first reading, I read the traditional discourse of R2P, starting from some of its foundations in international law and in debates about intervention, sovereignty, and human security, following to the discussions that helped to constitute and delineate the scope of this concept. This discourse, we see, was proposed as if it were for the protection of a universal (the humanity). Accordingly, in the second reading I propose a reversal in the hierarchical structures upon which this discourse has been erected. Starting with a critique of the structure of modernity, I argue that the R2P discourse, as part of this structure, reproduces its logic of differentiations and exclusionist practices. By bringing the body of those who suffer from the humanitarian violence, I question what would happen if R2P were in fact for a universal. My argument is that, by claiming for a universal while it differentiates between those that provide protection, those that are protected, those that could be protected but suffered the collateral damages of the humanitarian violence, and those that cannot be protected, the discourse of R2P performs in the constitution of these distinct subjectivities.