39/31 Summary of the intersessional workshop on the right to peace - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

GE.18-12633(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-ninth session

10–28 September 2018

Agenda items 2 and 3

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Summary of the intersessional workshop on the right to peace

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Summary

In its resolution 35/4, the Human Rights Council decided to convene a half-day

intersessional workshop to discuss the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to

Peace and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a

report on the workshop, in the form of a summary, to the Council at its thirty-ninth session.

The present report provides a summary of the discussions at the workshop, which

was held in Geneva on 14 June 2018. At the workshop, the United Nations Deputy High

Commissioner for Human Rights, six panellists and other participants made

recommendations, notably on possible means to build peace within and between societies

pursuant to article 2 of the Declaration on the Right to Peace, on sustainable measures in

line with article 3 of the Declaration and on educating for peace in accordance with article

4.

United Nations A/HRC/39/31

I. Introduction

1. Pursuant to its resolution 35/4, on 14 June 2018 the Human Rights Council

convened in Geneva, with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights, a half-day intersessional workshop on the right to peace to discuss the

implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Peace. Following an opening statement

by the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, the intersessional

workshop was organized in the form of three panel discussions, focusing, respectively, on

articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Declaration, followed by concluding remarks from the moderator

for the three panel discussions, Jennifer Philpot-Nissen of the World Council of Churches.

2. More than 60 representatives from Member States, specialized United Nations

agencies, special procedures of the Council and civil society participated in the discussions.

The present report provides a summary of the discussions at the intersessional workshop

and the recommendations made by the participants.

II. Opening statement

3. In her opening remarks, the Deputy High Commissioner recalled that the first article

of the Declaration on the Right to Peace proclaimed that everyone had the right to enjoy

peace such that all human rights were promoted and protected and development was fully

realized. In his address to the Council at its thirty-fourth session, the Secretary-General had

identified prevention of conflict and its drivers as the priority for everything the United

Nations did in support of Member States, and had observed that the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights constituted the best prevention tool for that task, as the rights set out in it

not only identified many of the root causes of conflict but provided real world solutions

through real change on the ground.1

4. Respect for international human rights law provided the necessary building blocks to

build and sustain peaceful societies and allow them to flourish. Over the past 70 years,

those human rights had been renewed and elaborated in international human rights treaties

and declarations, including the Declaration on the Right to Peace. As noted in the preamble

to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if man was not to be compelled to have

recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, human rights should

be protected by the rule of law. The Deputy High Commissioner asserted that people who

did not face discrimination in access to employment, education, food, health care and

housing, and who could speak, complain and vote freely to remove tyrants, would rarely

take up arms.

5. The multilateral system offered important tools and mechanisms for cooperating on

conflict prevention and peace. Nevertheless, stronger cooperation between the Human

Rights Council, the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission was possible,

needed and crucial in order to better inform and guide United Nations decision-making and

engagement towards sustainable peace. The findings of treaty bodies and the special

procedures and recommendations from the universal periodic review were also key tools,

which required follow-up. Furthermore, integration of human rights expertise in

peacekeeping and special political missions should not be eroded but rather strengthened

and enhanced.

6. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development provided invaluable opportunities to prevent crises, insecurity, violence and

conflict and to build sustainable peace. As part of that rights-encompassing agenda, the

Sustainable Development Goals sought to address the root causes of insecurity through a

focus on reducing inequalities and eliminating pervasive discrimination in order to ensure

more peaceful and inclusive societies. She recommended paying specific attention to the

1 See www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-02-27/secretary-generals-human-rights-council-

remarks.

situation of young people in that context, and emphasized that the recent recognition by the

Security Council of the powerful potential role of youth for peace and prevention should be

matched by the Council’s commitment to leading States to better appreciate the importance

of respecting the right of young people to a future of sustainable peace. The median age of

the populations of countries at war was under 25 years, whereas the populations of

countries supplying arms were middle aged and aging rapidly. The Sustainable

Development Goals would not be realized without the engagement of youth. The greatest

moral, social and political challenge for humanity was to mobilize the energy, creativity

and vision of youth in pursuit of peace.

III. Overview of panel presentations and discussions

A. Means to build peace within and between societies

7. The first panel focused on article 2 of the Declaration on the Right to Peace, looking

at means to build peace within and between societies, including by ensuring equality and

non-discrimination, justice and the rule of law and freedom from fear and want. The panel

was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council, Vojislav Šuc. The panellists

were Christian Guillermet-Fernández, Director-General of Foreign Policy at the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica and former Chair-Rapporteur of the open-ended

intergovernmental working group on the draft United Nations declaration on the right to

peace (2012–2015), and Maya Brehm, an adviser at the non-governmental organization

“Article 36”.

8. Mr. Guillermet-Fernández thanked the Deputy High Commissioner for her inspiring

opening statement and he acknowledged the contributions by diplomats, representatives of

civil society and academics on the long walk that had ultimately led to the adoption of the

Declaration on the Right to Peace in 2016. He noted that the Council had been working on

the promotion of the right of peoples to peace since 2008, following up on previous

resolutions on that subject adopted by the General Assembly and the Commission on

Human Rights.

9. Mr. Guillermet-Fernández presented the history of the Declaration. In its resolution

20/15, the Council had established an open-ended intergovernmental working group with

the mandate to negotiate a draft declaration on the right to peace, on the basis of a draft

submitted by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. He had been elected

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group. At its first session, the working group had

noted that the text submitted by the Advisory Committee (A/HRC/20/31) did not have

sufficient support, even from those Member States that had actively supported the process

within the Council. In order to maintain the important work done by the Advisory

Committee, he had decided to revive the spirit of Council resolutions 14/3 and 17/16, which

recalled the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace adopted by the

General Assembly in its resolution 53/243. He had highlighted that all the main elements of

the right to peace identified by the Advisory Committee had been elaborated previously by

Member States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations in various

declarations and programmes of action, and had argued that the right to peace and the

culture of peace were two sides of the same coin.

10. On 1 July 2016, by its resolution 32/28, the Council had adopted the Declaration on

the Right to Peace by a majority of its member States and, on 19 December 2016, the

General Assembly had adopted the Declaration by its resolution 71/189. The Declaration

had been the result of three years of work with various stakeholders, including civil society

organizations. However, all States and regional groups within the Council and the General

Assembly had been unable to reach full consensus, owing to the lack of agreement on the

title and article 1, both of which referred to “the right to peace”.

11. Mr. Guillermet-Fernández stressed that the Declaration followed the line of

Renaissance humanism. Erasmus of Rotterdam had been the pre-eminent representative of

that intellectual and ethical philosophy and, for example, had recognized the right to peace

in his book The Complaint of Peace in 1517. Other recognized philosophers, poets and

thinkers — such as Hugo Grotius, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich

Schiller, Victor Hugo, Voltaire and Ortega y Gasset — had subsequently contributed

positively in their works to elaborating the right to peace. Furthermore, in the period of the

League of Nations, several jurists had written important books on international law in

which they had developed the principles and norms of the right to peace.

12. Regarding possible measures to implement the Declaration, Mr. Guillermet-

Fernández recommended that the international community deploy maximum effort and

creativity to reach an agreement on the title and article 1 of the Declaration, the only

elements upon which consensus had not been reached during the negotiation process. As a

positive example, he referred to the unanimous adoption on 28 March 2018 by the Inter-

Parliamentary Union of its resolution on “Sustaining peace as a vehicle for achieving

sustainable development”, which had recognized the will of the United Nations General

Assembly to continue examining the issue of the promotion and protection of the right to

peace.

13. Since the Declaration on the Right to Peace focused on persons who suffered in a

situation of conflict, Mr. Guillermet-Fernández suggested that the special procedure

mandate holders of the Council should elaborate in their respective mandates the

multidimensional notion of peace. The role of dialogue, tolerance, mediation, assistance

and cooperation in the performance of the different mandates should be reinforced.

Furthermore, the Council could request the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to incorporate the right to peace in its daily

activities and undertake activities aimed at strengthening the interconnection between

peace, human rights and development. OHCHR could also be requested to provide inter-

institutional coordination within the United Nations system, in coordination with the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the University

for Peace, with respect to the promotion and realization of the three pillars of the United

Nations — peace and security, human rights and development.

14. In her presentation, Ms. Brehm addressed the role of States under article 2 of the

Declaration, with a particular focus on disarmament as a means of building peace between

societies. In over twenty years of work in the field of disarmament and multilateral

weapons control, she had not often encountered the terms “right to peace” or “peace”. In a

book published in 1967 the idea of real peace in the world and general disarmament had

been looked on as utopian,2 and in 2018 it seemed that peace was still not a possibility that

disarmament practitioners prepared for. In the sphere of multilateral weapons regulation,

non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament the notion of “peace” tended to be

confined to the preambles of instruments and declarations of major conferences or to

statements made by observers and non-governmental organizations.

15. Ms. Brehm also highlighted that the term “peace” was often accompanied by the

term “security”. For example, the Secretary-General had recently expressed hope that the

agenda set out in Securing Our Common Future: an Agenda for Disarmament would help

set the world on a path towards sustainable peace and security for all. The Agenda for

Disarmament itself identified peace and security as the central reasons why the United

Nations pursued disarmament. The Agenda described disarmament as a tool for preventing

and ending armed conflict; mitigating the impacts of conflict; protecting civilians;

upholding the principles of humanity; preventing the easy resumption of hostilities;

ensuring and maintaining stability; promoting sustainable development; maintaining or

restoring international peace and security; and preserving, securing and sustaining peace.

Disarmament measures taken by States to achieve those goals could also contribute to the

implementation of article 2 of the Declaration, which enjoined States to respect, implement

and promote equality and non-discrimination, justice and the rule of law, and to guarantee

freedom from fear and want as a means to build peace within and between societies.

16. With regard to multilateral disarmament and weapons control measures grounded in

humanitarian principles, Ms. Brehm noted that the focus of such humanitarian disarmament

2 See Leonard C. Lewin, Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (New York, Dial Press,1967).

was on mitigating the impacts of armed conflict, protecting civilians and upholding the

principle of humanity. Thus parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the

Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious

or to Have Indiscriminate Effects had adopted restrictions and prohibitions on, for example,

the use of incendiary weapons and blinding laser weapons in order to alleviate the suffering

of the victims of war. States parties were expected to continue the codification and

progressive development of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict and

more recently had held talks in response to concerns raised by the increasing autonomy in

weapons systems.

17. Ms. Brehm emphasized that disarmament could help guard against the erosion of

long-standing legal principles for the protection of the human person. Debates on science,

technology and weaponization included the question of how new weapons and evolving

practices of armed violence accorded with existing norms and shaped their future

development. Furthermore, disarmament practice could also help support the international

rule of law, as illustrated by many States’ reaffirmation of their commitment to a rules-

based international system in reaction to the use of chemical weapons and recent threats to

use nuclear weapons.

18. Promoting the rule of law required respect for human rights. While international

humanitarian law remained the dominant legal framework for humanitarian disarmament,

some instruments explicitly recognized the human rights dimension of weapons and armed

violence. Notably, States increasingly accepted a duty to respond to the needs and realize

the rights of survivors of anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions and the remnants of

other explosive weapons. Both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Treaty on the

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons contained provisions under which States assumed an

obligation to provide assistance to survivors and other affected persons, without

discrimination, including medical care, rehabilitation and psychological support, and to

provide for their social and economic inclusion in accordance with human rights law. States

had also assumed increasing responsibilities in relation to the aftermath of weapons use.

For example, clearance of contaminated land was a key duty assumed by States parties to

the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-

Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction; the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War to

the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional

Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate

Effects (Protocol V); and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Under the Treaty on the

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, States parties also assumed an obligation to take measures

for the environmental remediation of contaminated areas. That was consistent with the

recognition in the treaty of the grave implications of nuclear weapons for human survival,

the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the

health of current and future generations.

19. Beyond measures in relation to particular weapon types, recent humanitarian

disarmament debates had also provided an opportunity to engage with more systemic issues

that obstructed peace within and between societies. In particular, gendered aspects of armed

violence and the differential impacts of weapons had been problematized, for example in

relation to so-called signature drone strikes and other applications of algorithm-based

targeting and in relation to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Furthermore,

States parties to the Arms Trade Treaty accepted a duty to assess the risk that weapons

proposed for export might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of

international human rights law or international humanitarian law, including serious acts of

gender-based violence. Victim assistance under those instruments had to be age and gender

sensitive. The preamble of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

acknowledged the disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation on women and girls and the

disproportionate impact of nuclear-weapon activities on indigenous peoples. Ms. Brehm

also noted discussions about the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in forums and bodies

that deliberated on and made decisions about disarmament policy.

20. Ms. Brehm stressed that disarmament processes offered an important chance for

transformation towards more peaceful and less violent ways of resolving conflicts, for

example by changing the perception of threats in the relations between actors and by

building confidence. The transformative potential of disarmament would ultimately depend

on its capacity to foster an understanding and a conviction that violence-free relations and

peaceful conflict resolution were possible and sustainable. Furthermore, disarmament

mechanisms contributed to the institutionalization of a cooperative security order.

Disarmament institutions could promote multilateralism, uphold the rule of law and

develop and maintain norms for the common good; however, they needed to address

shortcomings in terms of diversity.

21. Ms. Brehm noted that arms control and disarmament had traditionally focused on

preventing the outbreak of war, maintaining international stability and addressing other

threats to the military security of the State. Disarmament was still articulated mainly in

State-centric terms and in line with negative conceptions of peace. Yet new concepts of

security that had been adopted into the disarmament vocabulary over the past two decades

recognized that security could not be achieved by working against one another, but only

through peaceful cooperation with one another. That had enabled humanitarian

disarmament to contribute to the realization of the positive dimensions of peace by

addressing threats to the health, safety, well-being and socioeconomic and human

development of individuals and groups of people (human security) and by promoting the

realization of their rights. Present-day disarmament discourse remained essentially security

oriented and did not recognize peace as the goal and the basis for political action. Because

security tended to be construed in political practice as the ability to defend one’s own

interests against perceived threats, security primed the maintenance of peace and justified

continued militarization and the development of weapons.

22. Ms. Brehm observed that in disarmament practice peace was either portrayed as a

desirable yet illusive end goal that was subordinate to one’s own security needs, or as a

process meant to civilize the conduct of conflicts through increasing regulation.

Humanitarian disarmament, through its emphasis on mitigating the effects of the use of

particular weapons, tacitly normalized and legitimized the use of weapons more generally.

The security orientation of disarmament hampered its capacity to effectively address the

structural causes of violence, foster more peaceful relations among actors and

institutionalize a preventive, or even precautionary, orientation to weapons development. In

order to promote the conditions of sustainable and positive peace and to break away from

the continued cycle of developing new and more effective weapons, there was a need to

overcome internalized attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that legitimated the use of force and

militarization. Disarmament had to recognize peace as the goal and the basis for political

action.

23. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of the Holy See noted that multilateral

diplomacy was an important means of ensuring peace and preventing conflict, and that

peace was not simply the absence of warfare based on a precarious balance of power, but

instead required daily efforts towards achieving justice among all human beings and

development that respected each person.

24. Stressing that the right to peace was the backbone for the enjoyment of all human

rights, including the right to development, the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela stated that the United Nations system should prioritize the implementation of the

right to peace and the right to development in view of the increased number of armed

conflicts, the arms race, economic sanctions and unilateral coercive measures that

hampered the development of entire peoples.

25. The representative of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation stressed the

importance of building confidence through disarmament and non-violent communication,

which should be taught in schools in order to implement the right to peace and allow future

generations to enjoy that right and avoid mass killings.

26. The representative of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law

reiterated the proposal that had been put forward by 692 civil society organizations in

September 2017 to revise General Assembly resolution 71/189 and to include specific

references to the right to disarmament; the right to human security; the right to resist and

oppose oppression, including through conscientious objection to military service; and the

rights to development and environment.3

27. In order to fulfil article 2 of the Declaration, the representative of the Associazione

Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII suggested that States should reduce their military spending,

cooperate with UNESCO and the University for Peace, and create a special rapporteur or

alternatively give OHCHR a specific mandate on the right to peace.

28. The representative of the Center for Global Nonkilling called for bringing persons

with disabilities into the discussions on the right to peace. He also stressed that war was

illegal pursuant to Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, and

that the exception for self-defence was strictly limited under Article 51.

29. In response to the discussion, Mr. Guillermet-Fernández noted common elements

that were also reflected in the Declaration. Furthermore, he suggested that national human

rights institutions could be encouraged to embrace a right-to-peace perspective, including

through the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

30. Ms. Brehm urged the participants of the intersessional workshop, including

diplomats, to incorporate the workshop’s peace-related reflections in their work in the

disarmament and arms control field. She stressed the importance of framing resolutions and

statements in the disarmament context with consistent language on human rights, peace and

sustainability.

B. Sustainable measures

31. Evan Garcia, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, chaired the second round

table, which focused on sustainable measures pursuant to article 3 of the Declaration on the

Right to Peace. That article called upon States, the United Nations and specialized agencies,

and in particular UNESCO, to take appropriate sustainable measures to implement the

Declaration, and it encouraged international, regional, national and local organizations and

civil society to support and assist in the implementation of the Declaration. The panellists

were Kostantinos Tararas, Programme Specialist in the Sector for Social and Human

Sciences at UNESCO, and Jennifer Pochat, from the foundation “Paz Sin Fronteras” (Peace

Without Borders).

32. Mr. Tararas recalled that the preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO declared that

since wars began in the minds of men, it was in the minds of men that the defences of peace

had to be constructed. The focus of UNESCO was to accomplish its humanist mission to

support people in understanding each other and working together to build lasting peace,

including through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information. The

work of UNESCO in advancing the right to peace notably involved efforts to change

mindsets through global citizenship education; to create the conditions to enable lasting

peace through intercultural and interreligious dialogue; and to expand partnerships by

involving new actors such as cities and local authorities.

33. Global citizenship education was the response of UNESCO to the threats posed by

poverty and inequalities to peace and sustainability. Global citizenship education aimed to

empower learners of all ages to assume active roles, both locally and globally, in building

more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies. It was based on cognitive, socio-

emotional and behavioural domains of learning. A key instrument for promoting global

citizenship education was target 4.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

which called on countries to ensure that all learners acquired the knowledge and skills

needed to promote sustainable development, including through education for sustainable

development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a

culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity

and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. In that context, UNESCO had

3 See http://aedidh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CVD-Statement-22.6.18-1.pdf.

been focusing on the prevention of violent extremism, in line with the Secretary-General’s

Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism (A/70/674).

34. With regard to the promotion of intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding,

Mr. Tararas referred to activities in the context of the International Decade for the

Rapprochement of Cultures 2013–2022. Those activities were underpinned by the

acknowledgement that peace was not simply the absence of war, but a long-term process

that required vigilance and mutual understanding through a participatory approach. The

priorities of UNESCO during the second half of the International Decade included the

creation of a database that focused on enabling conditions for peace, related advocacy and

the development of tools to counter discrimination, xenophobia and prejudices against

those who were different. In May 2018 UNESCO had published the book, Long Walk of

Peace: Towards a Culture of Prevention, which highlighted the perspectives of 32 United

Nations entities on the challenges of peacebuilding and explored how they had perceived

and contributed to the peace agenda within their own areas of competence.

35. In line with the emphasis on implementation at the local level in article 3 of the

Declaration, UNESCO was also working on expanding its partnerships, including through

the International Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable Cities. The mandate of that

coalition was to promote dialogue among local decision makers, recognizing that they had a

key role in promoting human rights and peace. Local authorities were duty bearers for

issues that had been delegated to their level, including the right to education, housing,

access to employment, participation and access to cultural rights. In 2016 UNESCO had

launched the “Welcoming Cities for Refugees and Migrants” initiative, which focused on

promoting inclusion and protecting rights.

36. To sustain peace and achieve sustainable development, Mr. Tararas stressed the

importance of engaging in strong collective action and enhancing collaboration and

partnerships, including with the business community, financial institutions, civil society

and regional and subregional organizations. In addition, States should enable civil society

organizations to play an active and important role in the policy process. Their role would be

instrumental in identifying local level partners and in promoting peace education. With

Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the New Urban Agenda as reference points,

UNESCO recognized the strategic role of cities in the achievement of global commitments

for peace, as the level of governance closest to the inhabitants and to the challenges and

opportunities for development.

37. As key messages, Mr. Tararas stressed the need to build on the new dynamic in the

area of prevention, as illustrated in recent resolutions from the General Assembly and

Security Council and in reports from the Secretary-General. It was also important to

promote a whole-of-government approach and to reinforce cooperation with local

authorities. Furthermore, in line with a whole-of-society approach, the work with youth and

women should be increased in order to promote peace and understanding. Finally, it was

important to mainstream a peace perspective throughout the work of the United Nations

system and across efforts to achieve all the Sustainable Development Goals.

38. Ms. Pochat said that States and elected representatives had the responsibility to

ensure the right to peace, the right to a culture of peace and everyone’s human rights;

however, legislation regulating the manufacture and trafficking of weapons was lacking or

insufficient, Governments were corrupt and there was a lack of political will to end all

armed conflicts.

39. Ms. Pochat called for individual and collective initiatives to achieve peace and build

bridges so that everyone could experience peace and revive the essence of human values.

Art, especially music, could function as a vehicle for persons individually or collectively to

express in a creative manner how they saw life. Paz Sin Fronteras, which had been founded

by the musicians Miguel Bosé and Juanes, aimed at contributing to the promotion of the

values of peace, human rights and tolerance in the world. In order to bring people and

communities closer together, the foundation had organized large concerts, for example in

Cúcuta, at the border between Colombia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and in

Havana.

40. The Paz Sin Fronteras foundation also played a fundamental role in mobilizing and

raising awareness on the right to peace, which had ultimately led to adoption by the General

Assembly of the Declaration on the Right to Peace. On the first anniversary of its adoption,

Paz Sin Fronteras, the University for Peace and the UNESCO Chair on Peace, Solidarity

and Intercultural Dialogue at Abat Oliba University had launched a book on the history of

peace in the West, 4 exploring how various intellectuals and artists had expressed the

meaning of living in peace. Through information and communication technologies, the

foundation was also reaching out to younger generations and encouraged action to

implement the Declaration.

41. Ms. Pochat recommended the creation of a forum for debate or a round table within

the Council in order to allow civil society organizations to share best practices on educating

for peace and finding peaceful solutions. In that context, she stressed the importance of

ensuring a gender balance for participation at such events. Furthermore, she suggested that

artists could become “ambassadors for peace” and create songs on the right to peace.

Concerts and related videos could be shared on social media in order to generate awareness

of how to reduce risks to peace. In addition, law schools could be encouraged to hold

debates concerning the right to peace in conjunction with the University for Peace.

42. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Cuba recalled that the preservation of

the right to peace and the promotion of its implementation was a fundamental obligation of

all States, which required policies for the elimination of the threat or use of war, in

particular nuclear war, and an international system that was based on respect for the

principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the promotion of all human

rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development and the right of

peoples to self-determination.

43. The representative of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law

reiterated the following civil society proposals, which had been made in September 2017:

(a) States, the United Nations and its specialized agencies, funds and

programmes should take appropriate sustainable measures to implement the Declaration on

the Right to Peace, while international, regional, national and local organizations and civil

society should actively participate in its implementation;

(b) All States had to implement the provisions of the Declaration in good faith by

adopting relevant legislative, judicial, administrative, educational and other measures

necessary to promote its effective realization;

(c) The Human Rights Council should monitor progress in the implementation of

the Declaration as a permanent item on its agenda and should appoint a special rapporteur

on the human right to peace;

(d) The United Nations human rights treaty bodies and relevant regional bodies

should incorporate the Declaration in their protection activities.5

44. The representative of the Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII encouraged

each State to establish a ministry of peace, which could operate in the following areas:

(a) Human rights, by providing a structure for fulfilling the duty to respect,

protect and promote human rights and monitoring compliance with international standards;

(b) Alternative dispute resolution and reconciliation, by promoting a

comprehensive and human rights-based approach to dispute resolution in order to solve

domestic and international disputes peacefully;

(c) Peace culture and education, by promoting them as crucial tools to address

the root causes of long-standing conflicts;

4 Miguel Bosé and David Fernández Puyana, History of Peace in the West (San José, 2017). 5 See article 9 of the draft declaration proposed by civil society organizations on 20 September 2017,

available at http://aedidh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Draft-UN-Declaration-HRP-20.9.17.pdf.

(d) Promotion of peace policies, by working for the good management and

coordination of all the efforts to promote peace and to implement the right to peace;

(e) Violence and conflict prevention, by monitoring and preventing violence and

conflicts to pursue peaceful societies and realize the right to peace.

45. The representative of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers noted

that the right to live in peace was referred to in the preamble of the Constitution of Japan

and that some district and high courts in Japan had recognized the existence of a right to

live in peace as an individual right that might lead to remedies for victims of violations.

46. As a sustainable measure for lasting peace, the representative of the Hunger Project

called for community-led development and empowerment, in particular of women, and

leadership development in order to create the basis for a peaceful environment by giving

people a voice in decisions that affected their lives and increasing the accountability of

authorities.

47. In view of the fundamental role of education in changing the paradigm and

recognizing the right to peace, the representative of Costa Rica noted that UNESCO, with

its large network of associated schools, could use the Declaration on the Right to Peace as

an additional tool to raise awareness and move closer to enforcement and implementation

of that right.

48. In response, Mr. Tararas confirmed that UNESCO had been mobilizing different

platforms to promote the right to peace, including the worldwide network of associated

schools, the UNESCO chairs at academic institutions and local authorities. He reaffirmed

the need for a bottom-up approach, including through youth empowerment, and stressed the

importance of creativity, arts, music and sports as mediums that brought people together

and could serve as vehicles for presenting messages.

49. Ms. Pochat added that social networks made it possible to know what was

happening in real time. Arts and education were ways of engaging civil society and of

working better as a society in a participatory manner.

C. Educating for peace

50. Mr. Garcia also chaired the third session, which focused on educating for peace

pursuant to article 4 of the Declaration. The panellists were Francisco Rojas-Aravena,

Rector of the University for Peace, and Koumbou Boly Barry, Special Rapporteur on the

right to education.

51. Mr. Rojas-Aravena stressed that if people wanted peace, they had to educate for

peace. Conflicts and crises were increasingly complex and required in-depth analysis, the

construction of shared visions and pre-emptive actions. Such responses to conflicts and

crises provided better opportunities for prevention, as highlighted by the Secretary-General

and in the documents on peacebuilding and sustaining peace. In the current context of

global interdependence, it was necessary to visualize and generate frameworks and

operational platforms that allowed the link between peace and security, development and

human rights to be transformed into specific actions that contributed to the de-escalation of

national, regional and international tensions.

52. In that regard, Mr. Rojas-Aravena recalled that article 1 of the Declaration

recognized the right of all people to enjoy peace, human rights and development, which

also represented the three pillars of the United Nations. Furthermore, article 4 of the

Declaration emphasized that international and national institutions of education for peace

should be promoted in order to strengthen the spirit of tolerance, dialogue, cooperation and

solidarity among all human beings. To that end, the Declaration provided that the

University for Peace “should contribute to the great universal task of educating for peace by

engaging in teaching, research, post-graduate training and dissemination of knowledge”.

53. Mr. Rojas-Aravena noted that the University for Peace, together with Paz Sin

Fronteras and the UNESCO Chair on Peace at Abat Oliba University, had published a book

on the past, present and future of the right to peace.6 In order to better understand the

Declaration, the book explored several important developments in international law, such as

the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace (1978), the African Charter

on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace

(1984) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Human Rights Declaration (2012).

The book’s authors had also conducted a detailed review of the codification process of the

right to peace, initiated by the Commission on Human Rights and continued by the Human

Rights Council, following the initial impulse of UNESCO. The valuable work carried out in

that field by the Advisory Committee and the open-ended intergovernmental working group

on the draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace were also analysed.

Additionally, the book demonstrated the added value of the Declaration in the field of

human rights, fundamental freedoms, and culture of peace.

54. Mr. Rojas-Aravena reaffirmed the commitment of the University for Peace to

education for peace, prevention, non-violence, inclusion, social cohesion, the rule of law,

legality and ethics. He stressed the importance of developing education that promoted

competencies, values and behaviours that contributed to peace, justice, sustainable

development, democracy, human rights, solidarity and the protection of the planet.

Promoting and supporting human rights meant building coexistence, cooperation and

solidarity, all of which were essential foundations for peace.

55. Achieving and sustaining peace required prevention, the development of new

leadership and holistic educational policies on the different tendencies that influenced

conflicts and complex crises. The University for Peace had developed programmes for

prevention education, carried out through its master’s and doctorate degrees, its customized

training courses and its academic publications. The University was educating and training

leaders for the prevention, mediation, transformation and resolution of conflicts, and for

contributing to post-conflict contexts, all with the aim of achieving sustainable peace.

56. In order to promote and implement the Declaration, Mr. Rojas-Aravena suggested

the creation by the Council of a biannual forum for education for peace and human rights.

That could be a space for dialogue and interaction between different entities of the United

Nations system and other stakeholders, including civil society and grass-roots

organizations, on the different issues related to peace and human rights. The structure of the

forum would be inspired by best practices and the previous experience of the United

Nations and other inclusive global forums.

57. Furthermore, Mr. Rojas-Aravena recommended establishing, under the leadership of

the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, a working group comprised

of United Nations entities based in Geneva that would meet annually to analyse United

Nations best practices on peace education. The results of those meetings could be compiled

into an annual publication, which would increase the possibility of those best practices

being replicated worldwide.

58. In addition, he suggested creating an educational museum for peace and a

multicultural space for dialogue between all stakeholders, particularly youth. The

University for Peace offered its campus in Costa Rica as a place for dialogue, the exchange

of mutual knowledge and the generation of trust and public policy. Peace education should

also be included in the monitoring and implementation mechanisms of the World

Programme for Human Rights Education. In that context, the following areas should be

focused on: the creation of an annual peace education award; the organization of dialogues

and regional consultations in the field of irenology (the study of peace); the prevention of

violent extremism; the promotion of cultural diversity; actions to combat racism,

intolerance and xenophobia; the integration of a course on education for global citizenship

in schools; and promoting studies on non-violent communication and education for peace in

university curricula.

6 Christian Guillermet-Fernández and David Fernández Puyana, with the contribution of Miguel Bosé, The Right to Peace: Past, Present and Future (San José, 2017).

59. Finally, Mr. Rojas-Aravena stressed the importance of effectively implementing the

Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, with a focus on human

security and advancement towards the goals of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

The culture of peace should be strengthened within the framework of the United Nations

through the progressive development of a culture of prevention, cooperation, the rule of law

and the construction of solid institutions. Developing the right to peace required creating

State policies to dismantle the existing culture of war, which meant educating for

coexistence, inclusion, participation, cooperation, reconciliation, democratic governance

and freedom. In order to increase the number of students from different nationalities

represented at the University for Peace, States were requested to consider establishing

scholarship programmes for their nationals.

60. Ms. Boly Barry began by noting that Nelson Mandela had called education the most

powerful weapon for transforming the world. As Special Rapporteur on the right to

education, she reaffirmed the Deputy High Commissioner’s call for a holistic vision of

peace. Furthermore, she highlighted that the International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, which also included in its article 13 the right of everyone to education,

promoted equality of opportunity. However, more than 1 billion human beings around the

world did not enjoy the right to education. She noted that most of them were women,

highlighting that there was a correlation between exclusion and inequality.

61. Peace was not the lack of conflict in a given territory; it also related to spirituality

and love between and among human beings. Ms. Boly Barry commended UNESCO for its

work on global citizenship education and a culture of peace and called for the development

of more norms and standards surrounding spirituality. Since in times of war there was fear

of others, both individually and collectively, that fear needed to be addressed, notably

through education as a fundamental pillar of societies.

62. Ms. Boly Barry recommended that UNESCO continue with its vision in pursuing

Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education). Furthermore, States should bear in

mind peace and spirituality. In many countries civil society organizations had developed

useful activities and experiences in pursuing a culture of peace. Information on such work

in educating for peace should be better disseminated. In that context, educational outreach

and the involvement of children, youth and women should be increased. For many years,

women had been marginalized in peacebuilding processes and they should be brought back

into peacebuilding. Finally, she recognized the important work by academics to develop

best practices, for example in transitional justice and education, and she called for better

dissemination at the international and national levels of such best practices.

63. In the following discussion, the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

recommended that academic institutions promote the notion of a pacifist State and closely

examine the propagation of the glorification of war and apologies of war in view of their

impacts on societies and the negative consequences for economic, cultural and social

development.

64. The representative of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law

reiterated the following civil society proposals, which had been made in September 2017:

(a) All peoples and individuals had a right to a comprehensive peace and human

rights education within the framework of the Declaration and the Programme of Action on

a Culture of Peace and dialogue among cultures;

(b) Education and socialization for peace was a sine qua non for unlearning war

and building identities disentangled from violence;

(c) Everyone had the right to denounce any event that threatened or violated the

right to peace, and to participate freely in peaceful activities for the defence of the right to

peace;

(d) States should undertake to revise national laws and policies that were

discriminatory against women, and adopt legislation to address domestic violence,

trafficking of women and girls and gender-based violence.7

65. Noting that the right to peace also included the right to human rights education and

education for peace, the representative of the Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII

stressed that defending dialogue and peaceful coexistence among cultures, civilizations,

religions or beliefs was essential to combating racial discrimination, xenophobia and related

intolerance in order to create an environment conducive to stable peace.

66. Referring to the 2009 expert workshop on the right of peoples to peace (see

A/HRC/14/38), the former Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and

equitable international order highlighted the importance of education on human rights

instruments, notably the prohibition of propaganda for war (International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights, art. 20 (1)), freedom of opinion and expression (ibid., art. 19) and

freedom of religion or belief, including the right of conscientious objection to military

service (ibid., art. 18).

IV. Concluding remarks

67. In her concluding remarks, the moderator highlighted several

recommendations made by panellists and participants during the intersessional

workshop. The international community should deploy maximum efforts and

creativity to reach a consensus on the title and article 1 of the Declaration on the Right

to Peace. All States should review and amend their laws and policies in the light of

international best practices regarding the promotion of peace and human rights. In

order to promote the conditions for sustainable peace and to break away from the

continuing cycle of developing new and more effective weapons, disarmament

practitioners should overcome internalized attitudes that legitimated the use of force

and militarization. Civil society activities should be supported in assisting the

implementation of the Declaration, including through advocacy, research, social

networks, art and concerts.

68. The moderator also noted the suggestion that various special procedure

mandate holders should elaborate in their respective mandates the multidimensional

notion of peace and the role of dialogue, tolerance, mediation, assistance and

cooperation. The 2030 Agenda should be used in the context of implementing the

Declaration by building a shared vision of society, with equality and inclusion at the

centre of implementation efforts and a holistic and people-centred approach.

69. Another recommendation reiterated by the moderator was for the Human

Rights Council to create a biannual forum for education for peace and human rights,

providing space for dialogue and interaction between different entities of the United

Nations system and other stakeholders, including civil society and grass-roots

organizations, on the different issues related to peace and human rights. She also

noted the recommendation that OHCHR should mainstream the right to peace and

make related information accessible on its website. A working group comprised of

United Nations entities based in Geneva should be established to analyse United

Nations best practices on peace education, publishing the results of its annual

meetings.

70. Moreover, the moderator recalled the suggestion to create an educational

museum for peace or a multicultural space for dialogue between all stakeholders,

particularly youth. Peace education should be included in the monitoring and

implementation mechanisms of the World Programme for Human Rights Education.

Human rights education should include a focus on non-discrimination, religious

tolerance, the prohibition of propaganda for war and the right to conscientious

7 See article 5 of the draft declaration proposed by civil society organizations on 20 September 2017.

objection to military service. All efforts should be gender sensitive and include

women, children and persons with disabilities in the work on the right to peace.