[BLANK_AUDIO] The controversial aspect of the report and of the R2P in general, resides in its understanding of the responsibility to act. More specifically, the legitimacy of military interventions in order to protect. The RTP report, details six principles for military intervention, each of which needs to be met in order to permit a legitimate military intervention, in the name of RTP. Right authority, that the primary authority for authorizing military action for humanitarian protection purposes, is the security council. It is important to note, that the report specifically addressed the veto power held by the permanent five that sit on the security council. The report proposed a code of conduct stipulating that in cases where interests of the permanent five member states are not directly effected they would not use their veto vote and thus not obstruct the passing. Offer revolution in the name of [UNKNOWN]. Just cause the intervention is warranted regardless of state sovereignty when genocide on large scale ethnic cleansing is actual or anticipated. In this regard, the trigger to protect is understood to be real, or potential killings and destruction on a mass scale. That is thousands not hundreds. Right intention. That the primary intention behind the intervention is to stop or avert human suffering. In order to ensure the intervention is motivated by the right intention, military interventions should be of a collective or multilateral nature. It should be supported by the people it intends to protect. Last resort. Military intervention is only justifiable when all other non military options, such as prevention or peaceful resolution, have been fully explored. Proportional means. That the scale, duration, and intensity of the military intervention should be limited to the extent that it achieves it's defined objective, protecting people at risk. In other words the stated action taken must be in line with its stated purpose and with the magnitude of the original provocation. Reasonable prospects. That there must be a reasonable chance of success in stopping or averting the suffering in order to justify the intervention. The consequences of action should not be worse than the consequences of inaction. If military actions exacerbate the situation and increase the severity of the conflict, it should not be carried out. The concept of R2P has evolved from its original conceptualization as put forward by the commission. Some of the key elements of RTP were, to an extent,, modified or removed by the UN in order for it to be approved by the General Assembly in 2005. Specifically, the outcome document on RTP, which was unanimously endorsed by member states of the UN [UNKNOWN] in 2005, was changed in three ways. Firstly, in relation to authority, the modified R2P did not adopt the code of conduct, where the permanent members of the security council would refrain from using their veto power if their interest were not affected. [BLANK_AUDIO] Secondly, in relation to the just cause threshold, the R2P report proposed that military intervention was justified when there is a series and irreparable harm happening. Or eminent to human beings in the form of large scale loss of life, or large scale ethnic cleansing. However, the outcome document passed by the UN, limited the scope for intervention to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. Thirdly, the 2001 report argued that international intervention under R2T could only be exercised when the state in question is unable or unwilling to protect its own population. However, the UN outcome document explicitly states that international interventions under R2P, will only occur when the state in question manifestly fails to protect its own citizens. To some, these changes to R2P have undermined the strength it originally had, with many calling it R2P Lite, whilst others herald it as a monumental change in the international system. A change signifying a move by the international community from one of non-intervention to non-indifference, in cases where crimes against humanity. Occurring within a sovereign nation state. In 2009, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, released a report implementing responsibility to protect, which clarified the current understanding on R2P and outlined the measures and actions necessary in rendering them non-operational. The secretary general described R2P as consisting of three pillars. The protection responsibilities of the state, that states have primary responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crime, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. That the international community has responsiblity and helping states fulfill the responsiblity to protect through international assistance and capacity building. And timely, decisive response to prevent and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Primarily this will be done through diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means. But when peaceful means prove an adequate, it may be appropriate to take timely and decided action. Which may include enforcement matters. [BLANK_AUDIO]