The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the German, Brazilian and Indian positions regarding the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Throughout the study of these three positions, the hypothesis advanced is that historical events, overall systemic incentives to adhere to this doctrine - or to refuse it- and perceptions of security / insecurity shape states’ preferences regarding the debate on intervention and Responsibility to Protect. Therefore, it is argued that the weight of the past plays an important, or even essential, role in the construction of the three positions in relation to R2P. This work is supported by the Alexander Wendt’s constructivist approach, as well by the concept of strategic culture and by the collective memory approach.