R2P was recognized in 2005 world summit document

However, there are differences in R2P formulations as compared to ICISS report

ICISS alters R2P in following ways:

1st difference:
 According to R2P, international countries will assume R2P when the state is unable or unwilling
to protect the basic human rights of its citizens.
 According to World Summit, the international community is prepared to take collective action
when it will, itself, manifest that state has failed to protect their population

2st difference:
 According to the ICISS, coercive intervention can take place in cases of ‘serious and irreparable
harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur
 In light of the World Summit Outcome, military intervention will meet the just cause threshold
in the more limited cases of ‘genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity

3st difference:
 In ICISS report, the criteria for military intervention were clear: (just cause, right intention,
proportional means) etc.
 In world summit, there is no specific reference of criteria. Criteria was to be decided on the basis
of case-by-case. In other words, criteria depend on powerful states: the five permanent
members of un security council as said by BELLAMY.

4st difference:
 In ICISS, veto power was not given special importance.
 In world summit, veto power was given enormous importance

5st difference:
 ICISS opened the door to the participation of the UN General Assembly under the ‘Uniting for
Peace’ procedure when the Security Council is blocked
 However, this is not possible according to world summit as collective action will always take
place ‘through the Security Council’

6st difference:
 According to the ICISS Report, the responsibility to rebuild was a vital element of the R2P,
rebuilding efforts after intervention are not even mentioned in the World Summit Outcome.