The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has recently drawn great attention in international society. With the end of the prolonged armed conflict, the case of Sri Lanka is often regarded as a contemporary critical case for R2P, since the government of Sri Lanka has been accused by Western sources in the international community for its alleged commitments to war crimes in the last phase of the war. This article argues that what the spirit of R2P really requires us to examine is how to protect victims in war-affected areas. R2P admits that the primary responsibility to protect citizens lies with the national government. While indentifying war crimes and punishing war criminals is a necessary action for the prevention of further atrocities in the future. However, it does not help victims directly. The international community is not exercising R2P by accusing the government, while there are many possibilities which both the international community and the government of Sri Lanka can pursue for the protection of people. The case of Sri Lanka would compel us to think more flexibly to achieve the goal of R2P.