This paper examines the justice-related questions that the international actors face when they implement the concept of “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” particularly its Pillar 3 activities (outside international actors’ activities to protect populations under atrocious humanitarian crises within a sovereign state). The R2P is an important tool to protect the freedoms (= survival, livelihood and dignity) of those people who aspire to liberate/self-determine themselves from violent and autocratic situations (= the pursuit of “de-autocratization”). Justice in the implementation of the R2P concept can be found in two contexts. First, justice is an embedded elements of a social order (= “embedded justice”) on which the members share the general consensus on what constitutes justice in the society they belong. Second, justice involves not only the identification of those “injustices” to be corrected but also the actions to actually “correct” the unjust situation by which the people are deprived of their freedoms. The R2P tests the will of those international actors to see whether they are willing to take the “responsible” roles to “respond” to the calls of the people on the ground for help. In the traditional “society of sovereign states” perspective, the norm of non-intervention of domestic affairs plays the key role. But in order for the international actors to implement the R2P concept to protect the populations living inside sovereign states, it is essential to broaden the scope of the “society,” beyond the “inter-state society” model and to imagine the meta-level “global society” in which all the stakeholders live side-by-side and share the overall consensus on what constitutes “the embedded justice” in the society. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the R2P concept is implemented by the international actors only where the scope of “inter-state society” and that of the broader “global society” overlap. To achieve a society with a global perspective is not totally idealistic. The Roma Statute of the International Criminal Court has already envisioned the society in which “all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage” and resolved to establish the Court to “guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice.” This agreement represents a step forward in our idea of justice in this globalized world. Having said so, however,the appropriate “middle ground ethics” has not been fully shared among the international actors, thus the international R2P interventions have been selective and arbitrary. Moreover, the change of political regimes often ensued in the guise of intervention for humanitarian purposes. Thus, the discourse and practice of the R2P challenge us how best we can harmonize the multiple “embedded justices” to achieve the common goal of the protection of human lives in a dynamic way.