Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development Discusses Draft Thematic Study on Peace and Security and the Right to Development
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development this afternoon discussed a draft thematic study on peace and security and the right to development.
Juana María Ibáñez Rivas, Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, introducing conceptual and practical progress made in the latest version of the draft study, said States had the responsibility to establish, maintain and strengthen international peace and security. Peace and security required full compliance by States of their obligations in the field of human rights and the rule of law. Within the context of the rule of law and commensurate with the scope of the right to development, States must encourage the active, free and meaningful participation of all persons and groups. Secondly, States must complete general and complete disarmament. Thirdly, States must eliminate the mass and flagrant violations of human rights, especially against those people affected by the breakdown of peace and security.
Mario Enrique Zamora Cordero, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva, speaking as a panellist, said it was useful that the draft study went beyond the strictly military definition of peace and security, also referring to the community and its implication in re-establishing peace. The right to development meant implicitly and explicitly the right to sustainable development, and sustainability was key therein. Development could not occur if greed undermined economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and progress must be made on all in lockstep.
Anne Quintin, Head, Global Initiative to Galvanise Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, speaking as a panellist, said this was a decade of war, and it had consequences for people and for access to the right to development. What the Global Initiative had tried to do was to examine this situation, aiming to place the responsibility back on States as to how they were responsible to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. In order to best protect from violations of international humanitarian law, there was a need for a whole-of-society approach and creating a culture in which respect for the law was ingrained throughout society.
Emilia Cermak, Chief, Crisis Preparedness and Response Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking as a panellist, said it was widely recognised that sustainable development and the full realisation of human rights could not be achieved without deliberate investment in human rights, particularly in the time of crisis, and this was why they had to be at the centre of all the decisions taken by the State in pathways to durable solutions. This was particularly topical in the current situation with an increase in crises, with a decrease in funds available for the victims of crises, and with an erosion of international human rights law and of international humanitarian law.
Santiago A. Canton, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists, speaking as a panellist, said the right to development, without a functioning international legal order, was a right without a guarantor. There was no lasting peace without justice, and no development without the rule of law: independent judges and access to justice were essential for the achievement of the right to development, a hinge holding everything together. The world could not continue to treat the minimum conditions for a dignified life in isolation: it must add the right to a healthy environment and the right to development to these minimum conditions, which would help ensure that States could no longer separate what held human dignity together.
Zakaria Benlashehar, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations Organization, speaking as a panellist, said the human was a participant in development and the beneficiary of its results, and must acquire effective benefit from the implementation of the right to development, and this must include youth, who were not just the beneficiaries of public policy, but must give momentum in orienting that policy, being perceived as genuine partners in the peace and development processes. The participation of youth was insufficient if it was just in the form of consultation - it would only be effective if there was ongoing commitment to their expression.
In the discussion, speakers said conflicts had such severe effects on individuals and societies that international peace and security were essential for the realisation of the right to development. War and armed conflict were the ultimate destroyers of the right to development and the enjoyment of so many rights. Economic inequality, forced displacement and others further fostered an atmosphere of instability across the world. The pursuit of peace could not be separated from the pursuit of equitable economic development. The prospects for development were closely linked to the wider environment of peace and security, and could not be separated from international dynamics.
Speaking in the discussion were Venezuela, Iraq, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Cuba, Iran and State of Palestine.
Also speaking were APG23, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Service for Human Rights, Humanity First, and Arab Council Supporting Fair Trial & Human Rights.
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development is a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council established in 2019 under resolution 42/23. It provides the Council with thematic expertise on the right to development in searching for, identifying and sharing best practices with Member States and promotes the implementation of the right to development worldwide.
Summaries of the public meetings of the fourteenth session of the Expert Mechanism can be found here, while webcasts can be found here. The programme of work of the Expert Mechanism’s fourteenth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The next meeting of the Expert Mechanism will be on Tuesday, 27 October at 10 a.m. when it will hold a panel on the role of business in realising the right to development in the age of mandatory human rights due diligence, followed by a panel on access to food and food security, inequalities and the right to development.
Presentation of the Study on Peace and Security and the Right to Development
JUANA MARÍA IBÁÑEZ RIVAS, Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, presenting the draft thematic study, said the preamble to the Declaration on the Right to Development said international peace and security were a sine qua non for the achievement of the right to development.
Introducing conceptual and practical progress made in this latest version of the draft study, Ms. Ibáñez Rivas said States had the responsibility to establish, maintain and strengthen international peace and security. This obligation emphasised not just the prohibition of the use or threat of use of force, but also to uphold the peaceful settlement of disputes. Practical measures had demonstrated how, within the multilateral system, regional and sub-regional mechanisms, with their preventive diplomacy and mediation, had been able to play a preventive role. The draft study noted that peace and security required a human- and people-centred focus.
Peace and security required full compliance by States of their obligations in the field of human rights and the rule of law. States must uphold civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, as well as environmental rights without discrimination. They needed to adopt all necessary positive measures in order to overcome and remedy historical and structural situations of discrimination that affected the most vulnerable groups in society. Within the context of the rule of law and commensurate with the scope of the right to development, States must encourage the active, free and meaningful participation of all persons and groups.
Secondly, States must complete general and complete disarmament. To achieve this, there needed to be a shift in security doctrine mindsets. There was a need to rebalance military expenditure and spend it on a peaceful and safe future. Shifting funds away from expenditure on armaments would foster trust between States and bolster international, regional and sub-regional cooperation. Active transparency would allow the participation of people in accountability efforts. States must also adopt all measures to combat and eradicate illicit arms trade, including weapons of mass destruction. Progress needed to be made on how lethal autonomous weapons would be managed as well as artificial intelligence-based systems.
Thirdly, States must eliminate the mass and flagrant violations of human rights, especially against those people affected by the breakdown of peace and security. This included, inter-alia the use of force, armed conflict, racism, racial discrimination and the refusal to recognise the core right of peoples to self-determination. States must re-double their efforts to prevent impunity and to ensure investigation into the facts, prosecution and potential punishment of those responsible for the acts as well as guarantee access to justice and remedies for victims. Young people, women and indigenous peoples must be reckoned as key constituents and changemakers, agents of peace, and they must be included in conflict resolution efforts.
Statements by Panellists
MARIO ENRIQUE ZAMORA CORDERO, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was useful that the draft study went beyond the strictly military definition of peace and security, also referring to the community and its implication in re-establishing peace. The right to development meant implicitly and explicitly the right to sustainable development, and sustainability was key therein. The study reviewed the link between security, climate and development, and the Expert Mechanism should delve further into this element, namely the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment to peace.
Over the last seven decades, Costa Rica had abolished its armed forces, using that funding on social services, health and welfare instead, channelling the funds towards holistic development. Many conflicts around the world were based on the control of natural resources, including biodiversity and genetic resources. Investing in a sustainable environment was one way to avoid conflict, and it should therefore be included in the final draft of the study as a sine qua non condition for peace, and not just a desired consequence. Development could not occur if greed undermined economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. Progress must be made on all in lockstep.
ANNE QUINTIN, Head, Global Initiative to Galvanise Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, said there were a number of parallel conclusions that could be drawn from the process of the Global Initiative to Galvanise Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law and the draft study. There were at least 130 active armed conflicts in the world today, at least twice as many as 15 years ago. This was a decade of war, and it had consequences for people and for access to the right to development. What the Global Initiative had tried to do was to examine this situation, and the increasing number of violations of the rules of war that were witnessed, aiming to place the responsibility back on States as to how they were responsible to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. The Initiative had identified a number of thematic workstreams, in participation with its Member States. One of these included the protection of civilian infrastructure, and also the protection of hospitals, as two of the most important things seen in today’s conflicts. The links between the respect for international humanitarian law and peace were also of interest.
Throughout the consultations with States and civil society organizations, the first conclusion had been that in order to best protect from violations of international humanitarian law, there was a need for a whole-of-society approach. There was also a need to create a culture in which respect for the law was ingrained throughout society. In this context, dehumanisation needed to be firmly combatted. Another conclusion was that the protection of civilians required protecting essential services on which their daily life depended, and this had a direct link to the right to development. New technologies must uphold the principles of humanity. Respect for the law was key.
EMILIA CERMAK, Chief, Crisis Preparedness and Response Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said it was undeniable that a crisis would have an impact on the full enjoyment of human rights: a crisis was often the response to a human rights violation. It was widely recognised that sustainable development and the full realisation of human rights could not be achieved without deliberate investment in human rights, particularly in the time of crisis, and this was why they had to be at the centre of all the decisions taken by the State in pathways to durable solutions. This was particularly topical in the current situation with an increase in crises, with a decrease in funds available for the victims of crises, and with an erosion of international human rights law and of international humanitarian law.
Localisation and operationalising the location element were crucial elements in the path to sustainable development, with partnerships with local and State actors to create context-specific solutions. A key aspect of advancing sustainable development was information-sharing and joint analysis. Combining operational response with advocacy was vital, and adopting a protection-continuum approach was also essential.
SANTIAGO A. CANTON, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists, said 40 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development. International peace and security were essential for the Declaration’s realisation, and today this achievement was not being celebrated. Today, he had never seen the international community under so much pressure, with attacks on the international system and on international law. Rules were now broken openly, without even the usual hypocrisy of pretending to virtue. Some powerful States who had built the international system after 1945 were now leaving it, even dismantling agencies, with impact on human lives. This was happening at the worst possible time, with humanity facing three threats: the risk of nuclear war, global warming, and artificial intelligence with no regulation. International law was being weakened at the very time it was needed most, with dire consequences.
The right to development, without a functioning international legal order, was a right without a guarantor. There was no lasting peace without justice, and no development without the rule of law: independent judges and access to justice were essential for the achievement of the right to development, a hinge holding everything together. Building peace and inclusive societies was vital, as the failure of the State to do so led invariably to violent conflict. Justice was not an obstacle to peace; it was what made peace durable. The world could not continue to treat the minimum conditions for a dignified life in isolation: it must add the right to a healthy environment and the right to development to these minimum conditions, which would help ensure that States could no longer separate what held human dignity together.
ZAKARIA BENLASHEHAR, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations Organization, said the draft study recalled the interdependence between the three United Nations pillars. The participation of youth must be envisaged throughout these three pillars. The human was a participant in development and the beneficiary of its results, and must acquire effective benefit from the implementation of the right to development, and this must include youth, who were not just the beneficiaries of public policy, but must give momentum in orienting that policy, being perceived as genuine partners in the peace and development processes. Youth were well aware of the long-term impacts of policies, being the first to call for change, facing the realities of public policy, and inheriting the repercussions thereof. Giving youth the floor was to open a voice for education, tolerance and intercultural development.
Dialogue between communities, defining shared development priorities, and follow-up on public commitments must be factored into post-conflict reconciliation and the establishment of peace. Guaranteed safe civic space for youth was essential, as was institutionalised participation at each stage of implementation of priorities towards peace. It was crucial to inform youth of their participation in policies. The participation of youth was insufficient if it was just in the form of consultation - it would only be effective if there was ongoing commitment to their expression.
Discussion
Speakers said peace could not be understood merely as the absence of armed conflict: it also meant tackling the deep-rooted economic inequalities that were at the root of instability. Universal coercive measures were counter to an international environment based on international peace and security. Investment in education, infrastructure and health also made a contribution towards sustainability and the forging of peaceful and just societies. Peace and development were mutually reinforcing states.
Military spending must be re-routed to development, particularly in developing countries. Speakers said States should put an end to flagrant and de facto human rights violations, and put an end to the use of force and foreign occupation. Violations of international law limited prospects for peace. Practical recommendations should be made in the study that encouraged international cooperation. The pursuit of peace could not be separated from the pursuit of equitable economic development. The prospects for development were closely linked to the wider environment of peace and security, and could not be separated from international dynamics.
Sovereignty, peace and security were essential for States to forge and travel their own development paths. Entire nations were subject to measures that erased their sovereignty and strangled their development, giving rise to questions about international cooperation, weakening the very conditions required for international peace and security. An international order that did not adequately reflect current realities risked undermining the collective efforts that were required to ensure a lasting peace and international peace and security.
War and armed conflict were the ultimate destroyers of the right to development and the enjoyment of so many rights. Economic inequality, forced displacement, and others further fostered an atmosphere of instability across the world. To genuinely fulfil the right to development, military-centred paradigms must be replaced by an environment of non-violence, non-aggression, and effective international cooperation. Peace was not merely the absence of war, but of respect for human dignity. Sustainable development could not be achieved without peace, and peace could not be achieved without development.
The Expert Mechanism should explicitly recommend the establishment of Ministries of Peace to guarantee the structural link between peace, security and the right to development. How to shape the future, when voices were treated as a problem? Peaceful discussions of self-determination must not be treated as security threats. The Declaration recognised peoples’ right to self-determination, and this was in parallel to the right to development. The development agenda must be shared by communities, and Member States should end militarisation and restrictions on civic freedoms, including the expression of self-determination and identity.
Peace was more than the absence of fighting: it meant not living in fear. Conflicts had such severe effects on individuals and societies that international peace and security were essential for the realisation of the right to development. The consequences of conflicts persisted long after their end. While States committed themselves to international development, specific countries and peoples were left behind and ignored, some speakers said, with the specific conditions for international peace and security being undermined and neglected. There could be no right to development under genocide, colonialisation and repression: States must end flagrant violations of international humanitarian law.
Closing Statements
MARIO ENRIQUE ZAMORA CORDERO, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Red Cross report indicated the existence of more than 130 conflicts right now around the world. The abolition of the army in Costa Rica did not stem from a philosophical process but from a recognition of human suffering. Instead, Costa Rica established police forces under civil control. The idea to create a Ministry for Peace with a connection between the rule of law and peace at the international level had been established in Costa Rica, so that it operated in the context of international legal institutions.
ANNE QUINTIN, Head, Global Initiative to Galvanise Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, said what was happening today was that the international legal system was under threat. There could be no peace or right to development without better respect for international law. The Global Initiative had tried to work on two fronts in parallel: to ensure that States worked within their domestic legal systems, and to ensure that within these systems all was in place to ensure that respect for the law was at the centre, and even at times of crisis the institutions were resilient enough to resist the pressure brought by that crisis; and to ensure that all States integrated respect for the law in how they managed their international relations.
EMILIA CERMAK, Chief, Crisis Preparedness and Response Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, reiterated a call for more solidarity and cooperation across the international peace and development nexus.
SANTIAGO A. CANTON, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists, said the answer did not lie in what had been happening over the last decade: in extraordinary times, there was a need for extraordinary solutions; however, he did not know what these solutions could be. There was a need to find new solutions. The international system was under attack.
ZAKARIA BENLASHEHAR, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations Organization, said that while military spending grew, considerable resources could instead be turned towards health and education and other social needs. Disarmament must be integrated into the advocacy for the right to development: the money liberated therefrom could help build a peaceful future with peaceful prospects for all.
JUANA MARÍA IBÁÑEZ RIVAS, Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, in closing remarks, said she was delighted with all the responses, and could see how the study was going to take shape thanks to all the contributions heard and received.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
M26.002E