ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO PEACE, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning took up the issues of the right to peace, the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights and international solidarity and human rights, which come under item three of its agenda, namely requests to the Advisory Committee by the Human Rights Council. The Advisory Committee also wrapped up the discussion on the draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against people affected by leprosy and their family members after Shigeki Sakamoto, Advisory Committee Expert, went through the revised document, highlighted all of the significant amendments from Wednesday’s meeting, and then formally tabled it.

Mona Zulficar, Advisory Committee Expert, reported to the Committee on the preliminary discussions of the Drafting Group on the right of peoples to peace. She said that in accordance with resolution 14/3, the Drafting Group was given the mandate to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace. She described the historical evolution of the notion of the right to peace, which had its earliest roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Drafting Group would consult with as many stakeholders as possible in order to produce a draft declaration that was as balanced and inclusive as possible. The ultimate aim was to produce a document that helped to promote freedom, peace and security.

In the context of the discussion on the right of peoples to peace, speakers raised, among other things, a number of interesting issues on the draft declaration, such as the scope and whether the right to peace should be linked to other rights and if so which ones. What made this particular issue challenging was that there were so many different views amongst the General Assembly and differing United Nations bodies. In fact, there was not even a clear definition of what the right to peace meant. The Advisory Committee had to ensure that this process continued to take place in a spirit of transparency and inclusion and several requests were made for the Human Rights Council to broaden its mandate to include the right to peace in the context of the right to self-determination. The right of peoples to peace was of great importance to all mankind. Solidarity must replace avarice and egoism in order to prevent the world from continuing to sink in the swamps of suicidal dementia as a consequence of the capitalist culture of greed and maximum gain. Peace must not only be guaranteed in international relations, but within countries, because civilian populations often suffered violence inflicted upon them by their own Governments and the armed forces.

Speaking this morning on the issue of the right of peoples to peace were Mona Zulficar, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Vladimir Kartashkin, Emmanuel Decaux, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann and Chinsung Chung.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Asociacion Espagnola para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, International Society for Human Rights, International Fellowship for Reconciliation, the Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights and Conscience and Peace Tax International.

Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, presenting the study on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, said that the Drafting Group was mandated to seek ways and means to enhance international cooperation in this area, and to seek further views from States and stakeholders. In 2009, by resolution 10/6 of the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sent a request to States, inter-Governmental and non-governmental organizations on the same subject, which was to consult on ways and means, including obstacles and challenges and the way to overcome these latter to enhance international cooperation and dialogue on the United Nations human rights machinery. The Drafting Group had agreed that first it would prepare a questionnaire, and would be detailed in asking what measures had been undertaken to enhance international cooperation and encourage States, institutions and non-governmental organizations to respond.

On the issue of the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, speakers said, among other things, that the topic was very vast and the schedule of two years would be useful given how extensive this topic was. The Drafting Group would also have to look at the main international instruments and consult with the relevant treaty bodies to see what work had already been done on the issue of international cooperation and human rights. It could also be interesting to analyse the different kinds of cooperation and coordination that exist today and which ones had proven to be the most effective. The report needed to highlight tangible examples of positive cooperation and it was equally important for the Drafting Group to meet with the main sponsors of this resolution once they had already made some progress in their work.

Speaking this morning on the issue of the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights were Dheerujlall Seetulsingh and Emmanuel Decaux.

Also speaking were Egypt, Philippines and Algeria.
Shiqiu Chen, Advisory Committee Expert, presenting the study on international solidarity and human rights, said that there was not much progress to mention on the subject of international solidarity. He was pleased to note, however, that Professor Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann offered to join him in this Drafting Group. He suggested that perhaps the work of the Drafting Group could consist of submitting suggestions and recommendations on this topic to the Special Rapporteur at the next session of the Human Rights Council in January, in order to allow the Human Rights Council to prepare a declaration on the issue of international solidarity.

At the beginning of the meeting, Shigeki Sakamoto, Advisory Committee Expert, read out some revisions to the draft principles and guidelines on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and members of their families. After small textual amendments and corrections proposed by Mona Zulficar, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Halima Embarek Warzazi, and Emmanuel Decaux, the text was formally tabled by Mr. Sakamoto.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 6 August, when the Committee will take up item 5, namely the adoption of the report including recommendations to the Human Rights Council, and take action on draft recommendations to the Human Rights Council before closing its session.


Discussion on Elimination of Discrimination against Persons Affected by Leprosy

SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, said with regard to the revised points of the principles and guidelines, article one of the principles had changed to "Persons affected by leprosy and their family members, should be treated as people, with dignity, and were entitled, on an equal basis with others, to all human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration, as well as in other relevant international human rights instruments to which their respective States are parties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." In article two, the text had changed to "Persons affected by leprosy and their family members should not be discriminated against on the grounds of having or having had leprosy." With regard to the Guidelines, two changes had been made to article 1.1. In article 2.1, the word "equal" had been added before "benefit" in the third line. A new article 2.3 had been inserted, as follows: "Specific measures which are necessary to achieve de facto equality of persons affected by leprosy and their family members shall not be considered as discrimination". In article 3.1, among other changes, the phrase "the vulnerable" had been replaced with "other vulnerable groups". In article 5.4, the third sentence had been changed. In article 12.1, the wording of paragraph (b) had been changed to "Provide or ensure the provision of education to children whose families are living in poverty by means of scholarships." The same modification had been made to paragraph (c) and also in article 12.2. In (h) of article 13, the wording had been changed to "To promote implementation of the World Programme for Human Rights Education and to incorporate the human rights of persons affected by leprosy and their family members into the national human rights education programme of each State."

After small textual amendments and corrections proposed by Mona Zulficar, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Halima Embarek Warzazi, and Emmanuel Decaux, the text was formally tabled by Mr. Sakamoto.

Discussion on the Right of Peoples to Peace

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that in accordance with resolution 14/3, the Drafting Group was given the mandate to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace. The focus of this draft was to suggest ways in which to promote the right to peace. During the preliminary discussions of the Drafting Group, Professor Heinz was nominated as the rapporteur of the Group. However, it was agreed that all members of the Drafting Group would share the workload. The concept of peace was originally recognized by the international community as an aspiration, as an end goal and not as a human right. The notion of peace as a human right had its roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which came about in the aftermath of the two world wars. However, it did take some time before this notion was broadly accepted.

The creation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966 was another important landmark in the evolution of the right to peace. It was the first international instrument to explicitly condemn war propaganda, although it did not go so far as to declare peace as a human right, which came about in the 1980s. The role of women in the promotion of the right to peace was also significant as women had traditionally been peace defenders in different parts of the world. By the 1990s, the move towards peace as a human rights gained momentum. The 2000s were labelled as the United Nations “Decade of Peace” and more non-governmental organizations began to push for the right to peace. Ms. Zulficar concluded by saying that the Drafting Group would consult with as many stakeholders as possible in order to produce a draft declaration that was as balanced and inclusive as possible. The ultimate aim was to produce a document that helped to promote freedom, peace and security.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, who served as Rapporteur for the Drafting Group, said with regard to the substance, there was a request by the Human Rights Council to look at a draft declaration, for which there was a need to conceptually delineate what should be the scope of the right to peace, and that involved many interesting issues, such as: the scope, whether the right should be linked to other rights and if so which ones; the need to identify the right-holders and duty-bearers and whether it was an individual or a collective right; the issue of legal status, and whether it was an emergent right or an equivalent to soft law; and others. With regard to procedure, the way in which the request was drafted essentially proposed a two-step or two-phase approach - the Committee was being requested to submit a progress report on the topic by next June, the seventeenth Human Rights Council session. The Drafting Group would therefore work on a conceptual or approach paper which would include basic clarification, discussion and summary of the more important issues, and may contain some elements of a potential draft declaration to be delivered in June. In the second phase, after June, the draft declaration would be developed. The Drafting Group would try to work with openness and sensitivity to come up with a perfect product, but was aware that at the level of the Council, there were different political opinions on the subject.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, said that according to Mr. Heinz, this would be challenging because of its highly political nature. He felt, however, that this should be a legal document at the base. He had some questions for the Drafting Group, which he felt could help guide their discussions. For example, who had the right to peace? How should the right to peace be protected? Neither the Drafting Group nor the Advisory Committee should be too hasty on this particular declaration. It could take one, two, perhaps even three years. What made this particular issue challenging was that there were so many different views amongst the General Assembly and differing United Nations bodies. In fact, there was not even a clear definition of what the right to peace meant. He felt that the Human Rights Council should have involved the Advisory Committee from the very beginning of this debate, during its first working meeting. In fact, he wished to make a request to the Council that, in the future, if they were to tackle any difficult or controversial issues that could not find consensus amongst members of the Council, they should involve the Advisory Committee at an earlier stage.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Advisory Committee must proceed cautiously on this text - it was perhaps more relevant to the Security Council than to the Advisory Committee. The crux of the problem was the link between the debtor and the creditor of rights - the issue was peoples, individuals, States, and the international community, and all this needed to be clarified, including relations between States. It was on this basis that the Committee had to identify the relationships between the debtor and creditor of rights - one of the possible avenues could be to examine prevention. Above and beyond that, there were ways for individuals to express the right. The International Court of Justice was currently examining a related issue, namely the events between Georgia and Russia - a war could give rise to this kind of issue, showing that it was better to deal with the issue preventively, rather than facing a fait accompli. The Advisory Committee had to consider the issues of reparations and sanctions, and found itself at the intersection between international human rights law and international criminal law in this regard.

DAVID FERNANDEZ, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, said that the Human Rights Council had stressed that peace and freedom were pillars of human rights and constituted the foundations of security and well-being. Attempts to codify the right to peace had occurred in the past but this draft declaration would be an important step in that regard. Resolution 14/3 had brought the issue of the right to peace to the table and explicitly recognized the hard work of civil society organizations in the promotion of the right to peace. The Advisory Committee had to ensure that this process continued to take place in a spirit of transparency and inclusion. The organization would have liked the Human Rights Council to broaden its mandate to include the right to peace in the context of the right to self-determination. And lastly, he added that all work on this issue should include a gender perspective.

MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Advisory Committee Rapporteur, said he had a few remarks of a general nature on the right to peace. The right of peoples to peace was of great importance to all mankind. Without peace, which was not just an absence of war but rather the absence of any type or threat of aggression, as well as the presence of cooperation, which was also part of the right, the future of humanity's children and of the Earth would be totally compromised. But this was an indispensable, albeit difficult, task. The Committee had to strive to create a series of laws on the right to peace, which had to be seen as an obligation for States, and to create a framework for the right, an international legal system under which the use of force by one State against another, with very few exceptions, would be illegal, and it could be based on the following ten principles: the right to peace was indissolubly linked to the right to development and self-determination; it should be seen in a multi-cultural context; it was an element of solidarity that was necessary; it meant a just peace under which all humans were respected and protected; it required education and investment in education for peace emphasising cooperation and solidarity as values instead of competition and rivalry; it was linked to a democratic and equitable international order; it also included a prohibition of the recourse to force in international relations between States; it was based on provisions of international law, particularly in the United Nations Charter and universal and regional instruments that prohibited the use of force and interference in the domestic affairs of another State; it also included nuclear disarmament and an international order that was characterised by the absence of use or threat of use of force by a State or international border; and it was based on the most fundamental values of mankind, which were of a transcendent nature, and were present in all religions, cultures, ethnic groups and societies. Solidarity must replace avarice and egoism in order to prevent the world from continuing to sink in the swamps of suicidal dementia as a consequence of the capitalist culture of greed and maximum gain.

ALFRED DE ZAYAS, of International Society for Human Rights, said that it was not difficult to affirm the right to peace on the basis of existing norms of hard law and soft law. There was a tendency to perceive the right to peace primarily from the perspective of collective rights. And yet, the right to peace was very much a personal right, for instance when a person exercised his or her right to conscientious objection to military service. He added that the right to peace was a holistic right, which had been recognized by UNESCO and by many other experts from civil society throughout the world. This was also reflected in the Declarations of Luarca, Bilbao and Barcelona. In conclusion, as the right to peace was a condition for the full enjoyment of all other rights, the exercise of one’s human rights by all human beings removed with it the threat of armed conflict, whether internal or international.

MICHEL MONOD, of International Fellowship for Reconciliation, commended the work of the Advisory Committee Experts. Peace was not just an absence of war, it was access for all the population to well-being. Peace was the fruition of all fundamental human rights, whereas war was the denial of all those rights to all parties to the conflict. There would always be conflict, but the resolution of a conflict could not be achieved through war, which was a succession of acts of violence. Peace must not only be guaranteed in international relations, but within countries, because civilian populations often suffered violence inflicted upon them by their own Governments and the armed forces. Terrorism was a clumsy, unfortunate reaction to institutionalised armed violence, a call to war for States. Governments must avoid falling into the cycle of violence, and ensure that justice, peace and security existed without recourse to violence. The Advisory Committee should invite the Human Rights Council to extend the mandate in order to develop a declaration on the rights of individuals and peoples to peace.

AKIRA MAEDA, of Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights, welcomed resolution 14/3 by the Human Rights Council on the right of peoples to peace in June 2010. As a major part of the Global Article 9 Campaign to Abolish War, a large-scale conference was held in Japan from 4 to 6 May 2008. The three-day event attracted over 33,000 participants, who came from 40 different countries, and resulted in a final declaration on the right to peace. The Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights invited the Advisory Committee to consider the conclusions and recommendations of the workshop of experts on the right of peoples to peace and also to request from the Human Rights Council that it extend its mandate to the right of individuals and peoples to peace

CHRISTOPHE BARBEY, of Conscience and Peace Tax International, said the symbolic impact of the right to peace was fantastic. But peace was not peace among nations - this could be left to the Security Council - it meant peace between all people, at all levels of society and so forth between all social groups. For such a peace to become a reality, there was a need for tools, peace tools, including a human or a people's right to peace, but also education to peace and peace methods. A human right to peace would be an excellent instrument to promote mediation, arbitration, soft conflict solutions, and all modern or traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution. Countries and people should give out reports on how they progressed towards peace, for themselves as well as for all populations, theirs and others. The Advisory Committee should see that there were enough resources, legal resources as a human right to peace would be, and economic resources to build peace not only between nations, but among all peoples.

MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Advisory Committee Rapporteur, proposed that a paper be prepared on the instruments of international law on the one hand and human rights on the other, which could serve as a discussion point on the right to peace. He added that contrary to what many others believed, the United Nations was the most important organization in the world and was able to save the world from all of the converging crises that were faced today. Nevertheless, in order to successfully carry out its tasks, the United Nations had to become more democratic. To speak solely of democracy was not enough.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, in concluding remarks on the discussion, said valuable contributions had been made, and the Drafting Group would take all of them into consideration. The Drafting Group was aware of the issue of the individual and collective right to peace, but its mandate at this time was to work on the issue of the right of peoples to peace. The Group was aware that, especially during the latter part of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century, there had been new types of war, a traumatic rise in violence, conflict, terrorism, religious extremism, ethnic and civil wars, and an unprecedented rise in cultural and religious tension between peoples, and was also aware of the extent of the State's obligation towards its people to protect them and ensure their right to peace as an enabling right and as a right in its own merit. The Drafting Group realised this was a challenging assignment, and that it would take time, and was a process that would build up as they went along. The Drafting Group was not hasty and would take its time to let the work develop, and this was its main principle, to slowly build consensus and come up with a document that would have value in the promotion of the human rights agenda and the right to peace.

CHINSUNG CHUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that she recognized that this was a particularly controversial issue but there were many activities and research that was being done on this topic. The Drafting Group would do the necessary to collect all of the relevant information.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, also in concluding remarks, said the work was only starting, and if anybody wished to help with material, including States, non-governmental organizations, individuals and other stakeholders, this would be gratefully received.


Discussion on Enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, introducing the work of the Drafting Group on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, said the Group was mandated to seek ways and means to enhance international cooperation in this area, and to seek further views from States and stakeholders. In 2009, by resolution 10/6 of the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did send a request to States, inter-Governmental and non-governmental organizations on the same subject, which was to consult on ways and means, including obstacles and challenges and the way to overcome these latter to enhance international cooperation and dialogue on the United Nations human rights machinery. So far, as of March this year, only nine States had responded as well as two national human rights institutions, and three non-governmental organizations. The Drafting Group had agreed that first it would prepare a questionnaire, and would be detailed in asking what measures had been undertaken to enhance international cooperation and encourage States, institutions and non-governmental organizations to respond.

The Drafting Group had to take stock of existing cooperation, with the aim of enhancing this, and there was already a large quantity of cooperation at various levels, including at State level and organizational level. Stocktaking would also include a study of steps taken following the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Vienna Conference, among others. First ideas among proposals included the elaboration of principles and guidelines to encourage ratification of human rights treaties and conventions; to enhance technical cooperation; and to go forward on the dradt declaration on human rights education and training, as it was through education that cooperation could be achieved. Finally, it had also been suggested that there be four levels of analysis: theoretical, ideological and philosophical; diplomatic, such as at the level of the Human Rights Council; encouraging the ratification of legal tools and instruments; and promoting good practices on a concrete basis to achieve international cooperation. The objective was to use human rights as a tool of unification for cooperation, rather than using them as a political tool. International cooperation should help to improve the human rights record of countries. The results of the work should be implementation-oriented, and promote the cause of human rights.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the menu was very copious and the topic was very vast. The schedule of two years would be useful given how extensive this topic was. It would give the Drafting Group additional time to prepare the questionnaires. It could also be useful to know what the authors of the resolution expected from the Advisory Committee and there needed to be some clarification on what the goals and objectives were for this particular study. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was a key article, number 22, where national efforts and international cooperation were highlighted. The Drafting Group would have to look at the main international instruments and consult with the relevant treaty bodies to see what work had been already been done on the issue of international cooperation and human rights.

In the Universal Periodic Review, for instance, there were elements of cooperation and it should be studied to understand some of the possible challenges of international cooperation. All stakeholders of course needed to be consulted in this study, beginning with national entities. The meeting of national institutions of human rights, which would be held in Edinburgh in October, might be a good place to begin. Today, everyone spoke of multilateralism and, in this regard, it could be interesting to analyse the different kinds of cooperation and coordination that existed and which ones had proven to be the most effective. There were a whole series of actors that needed to be consulted and encouraged to contribute to this study, including non-state actors, non-governmental organizations, foundations, etc.

HEBA MOSTAFA (Egypt) said regarding the priorities of how the work was going to go, the first step would be the elucidation of the concept itself, as this was the point of departure for all the work. Egypt agreed that this was where the work should start, as in previous resolutions the Human Rights Council had asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to seek the views of Member States as to what they viewed as good or bad in international cooperation, but, as the concept was unclear, responses received were not what was expected. This was where the role of the Advisory Committee came in, as the Human Rights Council was asking it to identify gaps, and elaborate on how to resolve problems. The idea raised by Mr. Seetulsingh that the objective was to use human rights as a tool of unification and cooperation and not a political tool was an important concept and should go into the study of the Committee. The Committee should provide the Human Rights Council with the complete information it needed, and arrive at best practices which the Council could then disseminate. This was not an easy job, and the Council recognized that, and welcomed the concept of consultation in this regard, remaining open to any suggestions and questions the Committee may have.

JESUS ENRIQUE G. GARCIA (Philippines) said that international cooperation should not be used as a political tool but should be used to push forward the field of human rights. The Philippines also agreed with the point made by Egypt that while the conceptual was important, the practical was as important and, as such, the report needed to highlight tangible examples of positive cooperation. It was equally important for the Drafting Group to meet with the main sponsors of this resolution once they had already made some progress in their work. One other challenge was the lack of resources devoted to the issue of international cooperation and this was one issue that could be looked at by the Drafting Group.

AHMED SAADI (Algeria) said Algeria had gained some ideas about the relationship between international and regional cooperation for human rights - it was indeed necessary for the Drafting Group to be aware of what was being done at the regional level, particularly within the Organization of American States or the African Union, and, as an example, within the latter, there was the Charter of the Rights of Peoples, which played an important role in human rights promotion. There was also a mechanism for evaluation, and Heads of State were involved in evaluation work at all levels, including human rights and good governance. It was important to dedicate room in the study to international cooperation and its links with cooperation in regional groups.

Discussion on International Solidarity and Human Rights

SHIQIU CHEN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there was not much progress to mention on the subject of international solidarity. He was pleased to note, however, that Professor Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann offered to join him in this Drafting Group. He suggested that perhaps the work of the Drafting Group could consist of submitting suggestions and recommendations on this topic to the Special Rapporteur at the next session of the Human Rights Council in January, in order to allow the Human Rights Council to prepare a declaration on the issue of international solidarity and human rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record

AC10/017E