The international community is divided on R2P in the form of intervention for the protection and restoration of human rights. This paper critically examines and compares the application of the Responsibility to Protect (“R2P”) doctrine as an established universalist norm as opposed to an Asian exceptionalism in its application, using the Rohingya crises in Myanmar as a case in point. The R2P doctrine and its guiding principles are examined to attest that these principles have not been utilized in conflicts in Asia, although the need arose multiple times. In light of the same, the authors argue that the resolution of humanitarian crises as grave as in Myanmar requires a recognition of Asian exceptionalism. The same is done through studying the interventions and responses from the international community in Asian conflicts that required humanitarian intervention, mainly, Nagorno-Karabakh (1994), Cambodia (1991), Sri Lanka (2009), and Timor-Leste (1999). We note that in most cases of Asian conflict, the international community does not intervene and instead, dominant regional powers are relied upon for the resolution of the conflict. Such is the nature of the exceptionalism of the application of the R2P doctrine in Asia, because of which the authors theorize that the Myanmar crisis too is likely to respond to regional rather than global intervention