4th Meeting, 13th Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development (EMRTD)

Good morning. The fourth meeting of the 13th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development is called to order. Yesterday, we concluded consideration of thematic studies under Agenda Item 4A and started discussion under Agenda Item 4B, which comprises four thematic discussions on different issues pertaining to the to be the realization of the right to development. We have concluded two of these in-focus dialogues and now we move to the third, which is entitled an interactive chapter-by-chapter discussion of the draft International Covenant on the Right to Development. This discussion is scheduled to the last 3 hours and most of the time will be allocated to responding to questions and requests for clarification from the floor. Thank you. This discussion will be moderated to ensure a focused, transparent, and non-negotiating environment. We are honored to have with us the following distinguished speakers: Mrs. Celia Navetta, Minister Counselor at the Permanent Mission of Uganda, a video message from Ambassador Samir Akran, the Chair Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group of the Right to Development, Professor Dr. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, and Mr. Mijir Kanade, Chair and Rapporteur of the Expert Drafting Group. A very warm welcome to you all, and thank you for being here today. I would like to invite our first speaker, Minister Celia Navetta.

You have the floor.

Thank you.

Excellencies and distinguished delegates, I thank the conveners of this important interaction, interactive discussion within the framework of the 13th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. I would like to express our appreciation to His Excellency Ambassador Zamir Akram, Chair and Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Development, Mr. Mihai Canet, Chair and Rapporteur of the Expert Drafting Group, Professor Dr. Diana Di Ceretto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame, And the Secretariat of the Expert Mechanism for organizing this timely discourse with all stakeholders on the draft International Covenant on the Rights to Development during the 13th session. My delegation underscores the importance of recognizing the right to development as an integral component of human rights, as established in relevant international instruments, including the Declaration of the Right to Development. The right to development is not merely a theoretical aspiration or privilege. It is a fundamental human right, indivisible from the interdependence and interdependent with all other human rights. This covenant represents a vital shift from charity-based models of international cooperation to a rights-based framework that demands equity, justice and the removal of systematic obstacles to progress. The draft covenant correctly identifies that states have the primary responsibility for the creation of conditions favorable to the realization of the right to development. However, this cannot be achieved in a vacuum. We emphasize the critical relevance of international cooperation to ensure a fair and inclusive international trading system address the longstanding challenges of debt sustainability that cripple the fiscal space of developing nations, and facilitate the transfer of technology and technical assistance without restrictive conditions. This interactive discussion on the Covenant serves as a basis to further guide future discussions on the early negotiation and adoption of the Covenant. The persistent gaps on all indicators between developed and developing nations is an offense to the principles of the UN Charter. This Covenant must serve as a legal catalyst to reform the global financial architecture, making it more responsive to the needs of those farthest behind. Development should not be a privilege of a few, but a reality for all, regardless of their geographical or economic starting point. Uganda reaffirms its full support for the negotiation and adoption of the covenant. We call upon all member states to engage in these negotiations with a spirit of solidarity and political will. Let us move beyond rhetoric and pragmatism, establish a legally binding commitment that guarantees the dignity and prosperity the prosperity of all our peoples. I wish you all constructive interactive deliberations. I thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for this important insight. We will now play the video message of Ambassador Samir Akram, the Chair-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development.

Distinguished Chair, Members of the Expert Mechanism, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to address you in my capacity as Chair-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development. I appreciate the opportunity to share this video message on the mandate, process and vision behind the draft International Covenant on the Right to Development which is the subject of your discussions today. Efforts for a legally binding instrument on the right to development predate the actual mandate to elaborate it. An early example is the 1990 Global Consultation on the Right to Development as a Human Right. One of the suggestions made then was that the United Nations elaborate and adopt a binding comprehensive convention on the right of peoples and every human being to development. The proposal to elaborate a legally binding instrument gained momentum with the 1998 Summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries held in Durban, where heads of state or government which proposed that consideration be given to the preparation of a Convention on the Right to Development as one of the important steps towards effective implementation of the right to development. In 2003, at its 13th summit held in Kuala Lumpur, the Non-Aligned Movement resolved that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Open-ended Working Group on the Right to Development should continue to give priority to the operationalization of this important right, including, intra alia, the elaboration of a Convention on the Right to Development. In 2007, the Human Rights Council agreed on a programme of work of the Working Group that was to lead to raising the right to development to the same level as and on a par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms, with the ultimate objective of elaborating a legally binding instrument. It was finally in 2008— I'm sorry, in 2018— that the Human Rights Council requested the open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development to consider the elaboration of a legally binding instrument on the right to development and requested me as Chair of the Group to draft a text based on the discussions that would be held during the following session of the Working Group in 2019 and the resource material from various previous Working Group sessions to serve as a basis for substantive negotiations on a draft legally binding instrument. In 2019, the Council reiterated its request to me to submit a draft legally binding instrument to the Working Group. I requested the UN Human Rights Office the OHCHR, to provide me with requisite support. The OHCHR then recommended the establishment of a drafting group to be composed of 5 recognized experts in the field of international law and with due respect to equitable gender and geographical representation, with the objective to draft a legally binding instrument.

Thank you.

Including commentaries. I selected the members of the Drafting Group upon recommendations of the OHCHR. They comprise Professor Mihir Kanade from India as its Chair and Rapporteur, as well as Professor Makané Mbegumbe from Senegal, the late Coen de Vreter from Belgium, Diane Desoto from the Philippines, and Judge Marguerite May McCauley from Jamaica. Dr. Kanade was mandated with the preparation of a first draft of the Treaty with detailed commentaries. As Chair, I fully ensured that the entire process was conducted in— through an open, transparent, consultative, and collaborative approach. Moreover, I advised the drafting group to rely as much as possible on agreed-upon language and envision a text that garners the widest support. Prior to commencing the drafting process, a detailed questionnaire was issued by the OHCHR to all stakeholders. States, regional groups, United Nations specialized agencies, and other IGOs, NHRI, NGOs, mandate holders of special procedures, and academics. Based on their inputs and pursuant to deliberations within the drafting group, an initial draft was prepared along with detailed commentaries and shared with 10 external experts for their opinions and suggestions. Thereafter, necessary revisions were made and the zero draft of the instrument and the accompanying commentaries were submitted by the group to me. I subsequently reviewed and endorsed the zero draft, which was published in January 2020. The Working Group considered a total of 3 iterations of the draft text, each time accompanied by negotiations in the Working Group along with written inputs. Following a request by the Council, I submitted a final text to the Council in 2023 and recommended that the Council transmit the text to the General Assembly, which the Council did in September 2023, and the General Assembly subsequently took note of this decision. Regrettably, a group of states decided not to engage in the consideration of the draft treaty, except for making general statements in plenary meetings of the Working Group. Only during the final consideration did the EU submit written comments, and to that extent possible, these comments were taken into account.

Thank you.

As Chair, I have also responded to their concerns and views on several occasions. I have since called upon Member States to adopt the draft text as soon as possible and suggested that the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development Later this year would provide an excellent opportunity to do so. Opening the text for negotiations in the General Assembly risks delaying the adoption, diluting the text, or even derailing the process. While achieving consensus would be desirable, It is an undeniable fact that the opposition to the draft treaty by a few states is based on their fundamental opposition to the very concept of a legally binding treaty on the right to development. 40 years after the adoption of this Declaration, On the right to development, it is high time to lift the right to development to a legally binding instrument at par with the other human rights instruments and to make progress in its realization for all peoples and for all individuals. I thank you.

I thank the Chair Rapporteur for his meaningful reflections. As we know, the draft international covenant includes a preamble and 39 articles. Mr. Mihir Kanade, Chair and Rapporteur of the Expert Drafting Group, and Professor Dr. Desierto have divided the chapters to be covered by each. I hand over now the moderation of this panel to Mihir, who will handle the discussion.

Okay.

Over to you, Mihir.

Thank you, Juanita, for giving me the floor, and thanks to the previous speakers, Ambassador, and also to Ambassador Zamir Akram for the initial comments. It is indeed my honor to co-lead, along with my colleague Professor Diane Desierto, this panel discussion on the draft International Covenant on the Right to Development. That has been forwarded by the Human Rights Council to the General Assembly for its adoption consideration— negotiation consideration and adoption. And this indeed is a milestone moment, as we have been reminded since the last 3 days, for the right to development, the declaration having been adopted 40 years ago. It is time that the declaration is converted into a legally binding instrument. At the outset, before I get into the presentation of the text of the draft covenant along with my colleague Diane, I'd like to add a few things to what has already been stated by Ambassador Akram with regard to the process of the drafting that took place and the negotiations that took place in Geneva over 4 iterations, actually, not just 3. One of them was online because it was during the COVID-19 pandemic. As was pointed out, in 2019, when the Working Group on Right to Development was given the mandate to elaborate and discuss a draft legally binding instrument on the right to development, A group of 5 experts was appointed to lead that process. I was mandated to prepare the zero draft, but it wasn't just the zero draft. What was also important was that I was mandated to also accompany that zero draft with a detailed legal commentary explaining where each provision comes from. —and I think this is extremely important since I'll point out at a later stage that every effort was made by us to make sure that we do not create new language, that the language in the treaty flows from accepted consensual international text and instruments. As was pointed out, even before I set out to prepare the zero draft, we sent out a questionnaire to all stakeholders and these included member states, these included civil society organizations, international organizations, independent experts of the United Nations system, academics around the world, and we received a lot of responses from stakeholders on how they would like the treaty, the draft covenant, to look like, how they would organize the different sections, the different parts of the covenant. With that information, I sat down to prepare the zero draft along with the covenant, and thereafter we shared it with the other 4 colleagues in the expert drafting group. We locked ourselves up in New York here at the headquarters for 3 days to finalize the first zero draft, which was then sent out to 10 external experts representing all parts of the world for their views. Once we received their views on the initial zero draft, We updated that, updated the commentaries, and then submitted the— what we consider to be our final zero draft to Ambassador Akram, who endorsed it, and that was then published openly to member states. And this is very important because from that point on, we invited comments and suggestions from all member states to the zero draft, and we received a lot of comments and and suggestions on that. Then in the first round of the working group, we had open discussions. All the suggestions, all the comments from member states and other stakeholders were also recorded in addition to the written comments, and we gave them a further 2 months' time to submit additional written comments and suggestions should they have any. Those written comments were then collected, compiled, and published. This is extremely important. Because we, since the beginning, adopted an open, transparent, consultative, and collaborative approach to finalizing this text. Once that compilation was published, we, as an expert group, again sat down to revise the zero draft based on the comments and suggestions that had been received, and we published a commentary to explain why certain suggestions were accepted, certain suggestions were not accepted, and the standard principle that we adopted was that suggestions that strengthened the draft rather than weakened it would be accepted. This commentary on an explanation regarding why the text was modified based on whose suggestion was also published in addition to the compilation of comments and suggestions, and in addition to the updated legal commentaries on the first revised text. And this process continued for 4 reiterations. And this is extremely important again to point out that every time the comments and suggestions received from all stakeholders were published, they were compiled and published, the commentaries on which suggestions were accepted, which were not accepted, and why was also published. And thirdly, the legal commentaries explaining the source of each provision and the updated text was also published. And it was ultimately in October 2023 that the Human Rights Council decided to forward the text, the final draft of the legally binding instrument here, to New York for its adoption. And the reason for that is that although the working group— of— on the right to development in Geneva is— it's open-ended and it comprises all member states, not just the 47 members of the council. It remains a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council. And legally, therefore, it's important that the treaty is adopted at a body which comprises the full membership of the United Nations system, which is here at the United Nations and ideally at the Third Committee. Now, let me get into the, some of the aspects of the draft covenant. The draft covenant is characterized by several important features, and as a starting point, every possible attempt was made to base the language of the preamble and the text on existing international legal instruments, including human rights treaties and relevant declarations and resolutions that have been adopted by states. Useful reference was also made to comments and recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies, jurisprudence of international and regional courts, various reports of the International Law Commission, and interpretative guidance provided by experts. Thank you. And I have to assert that no concepts, no norms, no rights, no obligations have been created anew. They are not de novo. They are already existing in international law. And I would like to, at this point, highlight that the commentaries that accompany the draft covenant are extremely important. They are also published. And for any of the delegates who would like to— [SPEAKING IN URDU] have clarifications on any specific provision, any specific word in any provision, please do refer to the commentaries because the commentaries are exhaustive and they explain every single word that's included in the draft covenant, tracing it to the appropriate source in international law. Now, importantly, the final draft of the legally binding instrument is titled as an international covenant. And not as a convention. And the reason is that there have been several resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Council, also by the General Assembly, calling for the recognition and elevation of the right to development at the same level as and on a par with civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. And in order to do that, the agreement in Geneva at least the majority opinion was that this should not be called a convention like the other core human rights treaties, but rather a covenant to bring it at par with the ICCPR and the ICESCR. Technically, there is no distinction between a covenant and convention and agreement, protocol and accord. They all are international agreements, but it is a symbolic feature of international law. At least in international human rights law, to call what we call as the International Bill of Human Rights, to comprise of the Universal Declaration and the two covenants. And now, should this be adopted, also the Covenant on the Right to Development. The content as well as structure of this draft covenant, including many of the substantive provisions, draws significantly from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the nine core human rights treaties, and in particular, the draft Covenant benefits significantly from the scheme of the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including its final provisions. At the same time, the draft Covenant does not compartmentalize itself into strict models of treaty styles, as will be evident from the commentaries that I highly urge you to refer to.

Thank you.

The specific nature of the right to development necessitates deriving the most appropriate features from different templates. Thus, while the draft Covenant draws on standard human rights treaty models that focus on human beings as the rights holders and states as corresponding duty bearers, it also appropriately incorporates interstate reciprocal obligations found in standard statist-type treaties. Similarly, the draft covenant borrows significantly from features of framework conventions that typically focus on laying down principles, rights, and general obligations, and not so much on the details of regulation, which can be developed subsequently in a phased manner through the Conference of States Parties, which is one of the treaty bodies established in this covenant. Indeed, for the most part, the draft covenant restates existing norms and principles —rules of international law in the specific context of the right to development while establishing a conference of states parties to permit future development as needed. There are no benchmarks or quantifiable targets such as what one would find in the 2030 Agenda pertaining to development that are incorporated in the draft covenant. The draft also builds on the 1986 Declaration on the Right to development. Every attempt has been made to adhere to its core content and language. Only modifications necessary for adapting from a declaration to a legally binding instrument have been incorporated. How development and its attributes are to be understood have been clearly described in the preamble that my colleague Diane will present shortly. It's done in a similar fashion to the Declaration on the Right to to development. The scheme of this draft covenant benefits significantly from the portions of the 2010 report of the High-Level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development that some of you, at least I know our colleague Heba from Egypt had participated in, which are really uncontroversial and universally accepted. So while not alluding to or incorporating the highly controversial highly debated right to development criteria and operational sub-criteria that were drafted then by the task force. The draft covenant does adopt the three levels of obligations on states related to the realization of the right to development which the task force had identified, and these include: A, states acting individually as they formulate national development policies and programs affecting persons within their jurisdictions. So this is called common to all other human rights obligations, which are inward-looking. All countries have the obligation to respect, protect, fulfill human rights internally within their jurisdiction. Now, but the task force also recognized two other levels of obligations. So secondly, states acting individually as they adopt and implement policies that affect persons not strictly within their jurisdictions. And, uh— Thank you. A very simple example of this would be unilateral coercive measures, national action, individual action by a country impacting the right to development and human rights of people in other countries. And we can expand this to unilateral trade tariffs, which violate the World Trade Organization's multilateral system, which in my view is nothing but another way of unilateral measures. And thirdly, the level of obligation states when they act collectively in global and regional partnerships such as at the World Trade Organization, at the World Bank, at the International Monetary Fund, should eliminate obstacles— existing obstacles to the realization of right to development and in fact foster conditions that enable the full realization of the right to development. An example of this which many of us suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, was the reluctance to even agree on a temporary suspension to the intellectual property rights obligations under the TRIPS Agreement at the World Trade Organization, which ultimately happened 20 months later, but there was a reluctance for a long time to agree to that. So these were existing obstacles to —development created by international law, that international organizations which need to be eliminated. At the same time, this draft covenant also adopts the contemporary three-pronged typology of obligations on states to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. In addition, this draft reaffirms existing obligations of international organizations and legal persons under international law. The Covenant is divided into 5 parts apart from the preamble. The preamble adopts a logical flow to its paragraphs that are informed by the evolutive trajectory of the right to development leading up to the draft Covenant. Part I of the Covenant comprises 3 opening provisions addressing the purpose of the Covenant, definitions for specific terms used, and general principles that should guide the implementation of obligations by duty bearers. Part 2 focuses on the right to development itself and its rights holders. The 4 provisions therein comprise the content of the right and its relationship with the right to self-determination, because at the end of the day, we call this the right to self-determined development, that is exactly what right to development is about, but also relationship with other human rights as well as with the general duty of everyone to respect human rights under international law. Part 3 then focuses on duties and duty bearers. It does not create new obligations, it only reiterates those already existing under international law. So please do refer again to the commentaries should you have questions on the source of those obligations existing in current international law. It begins with general obligations of States Parties and international organizations, and then proceeds with provisions covering various important dimensions of the obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to development across the three levels that I have identified already, flowing from the work of the High-Level Task Force. Thank you. It pays specific attention to the duty to cooperate. It also addresses specific aspects relevant to the realization of the right to development, such as the prohibition of coercive measures, specific or remedial measures, gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. And I have to say that there is a bit of misunderstanding about this provision, which we would like to clarify to delegates as we go ahead. Thank you., but also the context of indigenous peoples and peasants and other people working in rural areas, measures to prevent and combat corruption. Some of these suggestions actually came from important stakeholders, including UN entities. There's the provisions on international peace and security, on stat— on prohibition of limitations, impact assessments, statistics and data collection. Sustainable development and harmonious interpretation with other international agreements. Part 4 sets up a sui generis mechanism for implementation of this draft covenant by establishing two treaty bodies. These are, number one, a Conference of States Parties, which is in a way the— what in, in the climate change international law language would what we call the supreme body, but it also comprises a subsidiary implementation mechanism that comprises independent experts. And I'll share details of this as we go ahead. And then Part 5 contains the final provisions of the treaty, which are common to almost every human rights treaty. Now, I'd like to hand over the floor to my colleague, Professor Diane Desierto, for presenting very briefly the preamble and Part I of the draft covenant. But we would really like to utilize this opportunity to receive comments and receive questions from the delegates in order to be able to clarify any doubts that may be there about this— about the draft covenant. And so with that, Diane— Diane. Please, you have the floor.

Good morning and thank you very much to the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to return to the actual situs of the drafting of this Covenant from 8 years ago and no less than on the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development. I'm also deeply honored that we are able to present the work that has been entrusted to us in dialogue and in repeated iterations of discussions and consultations with all states, and that the draft International Covenant you have before you, the text of this draft, already reflects considerable inputs from states, all the member states of the United— most of the member states of United the Nations, I would say, and a wide swath of consultations with UN agencies, with civil society members. And so it is a pleasure and an honor to open these— this text— this textual discussion with the purpose of hopefully illuminating on any further questions there might be. I will not be regurgitating what is in the text of the Covenant or the text of the commentaries, but rather will point thematic issues that might not be clear from the structure of this particular draft treaty. There is, as has been pointed out by Ambassador Akram, a deep significance that this august body at the United Nations recognized when it decided to proceed to proceed with creating a legally binding instrument to recognize this right. This means that the recognition of this right, apart from its status in the 1986 Declaration, would not just be a policy option for states, but would actually be a legal right of individuals and peoples. Working together with states, states would enable them to realize this right better in legal form as opposed to in a declaratory form. This is why we were also cognizant from the drafting many years ago that began here in New York and proceeded with the working group in Geneva, that we were cognizant that we not only had to pay close attention to the very mandate given by the states themselves to create a legally binding instrument, but also to provide technical expertise to align the 1986 Declaration with what was around 40 years of global, regional, international, local, national practices on how development is realized. And thus, the text you have before you, along with the commentaries, are here to provide textual clarity on interpretation, but most importantly, to help all states in its implementation. The thrust of this Covenant is to safeguard the human right of individuals and peoples to a multidimensional understanding of development, as you will see fleshed out throughout this document. The understanding of development weaves in all that our states in the world have already proclaimed in existing instruments, treaties, resolutions, and initiatives that indicate what states in the world have understood development to be now and for the future. And as such, when we bring all of these global efforts to bear for the recognition, the protection, and the fulfillment and implementation of this Human Rights, I am assured and personally myself deeply honored that this already does encapsulate the widest possible expertise brought to bear by states and non-state participants on the scope of international law and the state of development to which all states are concerned. So turning now for my part of the discussion on 3 aspects that I will discuss in Part 1. And the first is the preamble, the second is the object and purpose, the third are general principles. The structure of this treaty begins with a preamble. In traditional international law, the preamble is identified as already containing the objects and purposes of a treaty. However, we purposely separated and created a distinct provision on the object and purpose so that there would be no ambiguity insofar as the object and purpose of this treaty is concerned. What is the significance, therefore, of the preamble? The preamble instantiates, establishes, actually notes of record what the long legal policy diplomatic record is in the recognition of this right that forms the context that could be also appreciated as part of the criteria, or I should say part of the elements of interpretation under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. And thus, it is elaborate for a reason, because it's so easy to think that development may mean many things, But if we don't foreground our understanding of the right to development in what states have already themselves agreed upon in 40 years of practice, the temptation towards ambiguity might be difficult for implementing this right. And thus, let me begin with the preamble, which in its very first paragraph points to the architecture, the Charter of the United Nations and its own purposes and principles. In the second paragraph, we proceed to very specific provisions of the Charter on the obligation of states that is already assumed by members of the United Nations under Articles 1(3), 1(3), 55, and 56 of the Charter to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations to promote higher standards of living, full employment, conditions of economic social progress and development, solutions for international economic social health and related problems, cooperation on culture and education, and universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction. Now, I won't preempt what Professor Kanade will be discussing, but what is also important important in reading this preamble in relation to the treaty as a whole will be the definition of the right to development under Article 4, Paragraph 1 of this draft covenant. There are distinct acts in that definition which refer to participation, contribution, and enjoyment of development by individuals and peoples in a manner that is— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] interrelated, indivisible, interdependent with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms. And without preempting that discussion, this context here in the preamble is meant to foreground that interdependence and that indivisibility, not just in the chronological as well as the thematic bases for— that animates a draft treaty of this nature.

Thank you.

The third paragraph then turns to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which encapsulates in this declaration the fundamental aspiration to a social and international order in which rights and freedoms could be fully realized to enjoy all economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights. This does give us a sense, and the reader a sense at the outset, that the right to development is not something new. It was at the very founding of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the very codification, the initial attempt at codification of human rights. Development was already foremost in the minds of the states that decided to proceed with the Charter-based system. The next paragraph then thus recognizes that the Universal Declaration— Thank you. Recognizes that everyone is entitled to realization in accordance with their organization and resources of those economic, social, cultural rights that are indispensable for dignity and free development. From that architecture, we shift ground to all international human rights treaties in the next paragraph, which is why there is an extensive citation to all international human rights treaties, but also international instruments that have had tremendous practices in the UN system, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants, among others. And from that history, we now reaffirm in the next paragraph the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development because it is the inspiration and the initial source for the elaboration of this text. Noting that declaration, we proceed with examining the track record of the right to development as it has been repeatedly articulated in numerous international declarations, resolutions, and agendas that are all enumerated in the commentaries, as it was also prioritized by all of the states with respect to the Millennium Declaration here at the United Nations, and in very specific General Assembly resolutions that purposely gave the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights the mandate, the distinct mandate, to promote and protect the realization of the right to development. So even before the actual codification of a treaty, it was— [SPEAKING SPANISH] the states of this august body that vested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with a specific mandate recognizing this right. And to that end, the rest of the preamble paragraph then looks at the genealogy of Assembly resolutions that guide the work of the Office of the High Commissioner in tandem with the Human Rights Council. Thank you. Examining that— or rather emphasizing that the work of elaborating such a treaty should be guided by principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity, dialogue, and cooperation to enhance, promote, and protect all human rights, including the right to development. Separately from the universal system, we also took into account that in the last 40 years, the regional human rights international instruments have themselves recognized and affirmed the right to development in the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the American Convention on Human Rights and the interpretation of Article 26 in that convention, as well as the Additional Protocol to the American Convention, otherwise known as the Protoc— Protocol of San Salvador. The Arab Charter, the Human Rights Declaration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Abu Dhabi Declaration on the Right to Development. To keep with the thread and the continuity of the right to development from its very recognition at the earliest stages of the formation and creation of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner proceeding towards the actual work and evolution of jurisprudence and treaty development in regional organizations. And thus, we also took note of the Charter of the Organization of American States, which refers to integral development, and the American Convention on Human Rights that refers to progressive development. After looking at regional practices, we then turned to the various international instruments that animate so much of global cooperation today, most especially the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which explicitly said and affirmed that sustainable development has to be achieved multidimensionally through economic, social, and environmental development in a balanced and integrated manner that equitably meets— Thank you. Developmental as well as environmental needs of present and future generations in harmony with nature. Prescinding from that recognition of the continuity, that continuum of global action, recognizing, practicing, articulating the right to development all the way to the formulation of the 2030 Agenda, we then adopted language that was already existing in many of these instruments, including the Declaration on the Right to Development, about the concern for the existence of serious obstacles to how the right to development could be realized, such as through poverty, extreme poverty, hunger, inequality, climate change, health emergencies and health crises, the denial of the right to self-determination, colonization and neocolonization, forced displacement, racism, discrimination, foreign domination and occupation, aggression, threats against national sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity, terrorism, crime, corruption, all forms of deprivation affecting the subsistence of peoples, and the denial of other human rights. These serious obstacles were elaborated not just by the states themselves in the instruments that we have enumerated in the earlier parts of the preamble, but they have also been recognized in the jurisprudence of the treaty bodies, various treaty bodies in the universal system, as well as by the regional courts and decisions of commissions, as well as courts. And these obstacles, which were not explicitly elaborated in the Declaration on the right to development were updated to recognize the interconnected threats, such as from climate change, displacement, things that in 1986 were not as vividly clear to states in terms of the nature of these global threats and how our collective global and local development could be impacted. The next paragraph of the preamble then recognizes that, notwithstanding all of these serious obstacles, we recognize that the right to development, as it derives from our shared inherent dignity as members of the human family, is an inalienable human right of all individuals as well as peoples, and that this equality of opportunity for development is a prerogative both of nations as well as the individuals who make up nations. And this is an important thread going back to the very Declaration on the Right to Development that in one sense focused on the inherent dignity of the individual human person, but also lacked the reference to peoples as a whole. And that was partly why the language here reflected the concern that was also manifested insisted by many states in the iterations of this document, that the needs of peoples also be reflected with respect to the right to development. And finally, this gets us to the last few preambular paragraphs that start focusing on defining what development is. And that development, as it has been practiced from the very beginning, from its roots in the Charter of the United Nations to the treaty practices and the international soft instruments and the decisions of various regions as well as international courts, recognizing that the formulation here of development elaborates a little bit further than the Declaration on the Right to Development precisely because of those 40 years of practices. And as such—

Thank you.

In this preamble paragraph, development is defined as a comprehensive civil, cultural, economic, environmental, political, and social process that is aimed at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all peoples and individuals on the basis of their active, free, and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom. There are many aspects of this definition that echo, for example, the Covenant on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights that refers to the fair distribution of benefits. It also reflects language on meaningful— or rather active free participation and development, but the word meaningful was also included here precisely because of the —experience in the resolutions that we identified that recognized that while there could be economic growth, it may not necessarily be enough in and of itself to realize development, and therefore development must also be spurred by its meaningfulness to individuals and peoples concerned. The next paragraph thus Encapsulates what I just said. The development is understood not simply in terms of economic growth. In 1986, when the Declaration on the Right to Development was formulated, there was indeed, and quite rightly and understandably, a heavy emphasis on the elimination and eradication of poverty. But we have since recognized in 40 years of the practices of the cooperation built by states, the decisions of international courts and tribunals, that that development cannot just be understood from a purely nominal estimation of economic growth, but rather it has to, in many ways akin to the capabilities theory of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, a means to to widen people's choices to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral, spiritual existence that is rooted in their cultural identity and the cultural identity— diversity of peoples. And in this, we refer to the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity to insert that language. We also— and this is going to be important in the next discussion by Professor Kanade on Article 4, Paragraph 1. We also reaffirmed in the preamble what has already been well established in 40 years of international practices, that the universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness, interdependence, and mutually reinforcing nature of all civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights include the right to development. And as such, in the next paragraph, realizing that right to development constitutes an important end, an end, but also an integral means, a means of sustainable development, recognizing that interrelatedness that we cannot realize the right to development if that development is not at all sustainable. We then look to other aspects and dimensions of this interrelatedness and indivisibility and interdependence and recognized in the next paragraph that peace and security at all levels has to be and already is an essential element for realizing the right to development and that this realization can in turn contribute to establishing, maintaining, maintaining and strengthening peace and security security at all levels. Later, at Articles 19 to 25, we will approach these questions of the mutually reinforcing nature of these different aspects and topics that are so intrinsically imbued with content and importance for realizing development. Thus, we move on to other factors that are also deemed to be mutually reinforcing such as the effective rule of law, good governance, and accountability at all levels. We also look at how, in the next paragraph, individuals and peoples are the central subjects of the development process, and thus, part of the many reflections from resolutions that were concluded by states themselves, development policy has to make individuals and peoples— Thank you. As subjects, the main participants, and not just the beneficiaries of development. So this does call for considerable agency in how we frame and how states think about bringing individuals and peoples to the table in the drafting of development policies. It also recognizes in the next paragraph, separately from thinking about actors who will be present in development policymaking, but that sep— apart from the national dimension, individuals and peoples are also entitled to both a national and an international environment that is conducive for the same just, equitable, participatory development that is centered on them and respectful of all human rights. Again, that's also reflective of where the interpretation interpretation of various general comments have come in for various of the— various commentaries to the 9 major human rights treaties that do emphasize participation and equitability with respect to that development. We also recognize, however, that separately from individuals and peoples as subjects in the development process, it is states that will have the primary responsibility to forge international cooperation and meaningful engagements with civil society and to create those conditions that favorably realize the right to development. This language of creation of conditions is nothing new. This is, in fact, the mandate and the— part of the preamble that is contained in the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, where states are already obligated to create the conditions for the enjoyment of economic, social, cultural rights. And so this language harmonizes what is already, to a large extent, accepted within the treaty practices in other— in other human rights treaties. Shifting ground from the state, we also recognize that separately from individuals and peoples, there is a role for every organ of society, whether that is the public or the private sector or civil society at the national or international level that has a duty to respect the human rights of all that includes the right to development. And as such, this brings us back almost full circle from the beginnings of the right to development in the Charter of the United Nations, the mandate of OHCHR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It now echoes towards the end that how we realize the right to development has to be framed as a common concern for all humankind. Common concern of humankind, as indicated in the commentaries, is a language that is initially reflected in environmental treaties.

Thank you.

However, the importance with respect to the common concern language refers to the need for collective global action, for international cooperation, values that in and of themselves are already reflected in the resolutions and the instruments that are referred to in the earlier parts of the preamble. And thus, moving on to the last two paragraphs of of the preamble, recognizing that the right to development, both in its genealogy in the practices of states, the recognition of states, the elaboration of states and other instruments, recognizing that despite all of those resolutions, declarations, and agendas, the right has not yet been effectively operationalized. The last paragraph is— I'm sorry. Conveys the view that a comprehensive and integral international covenant to promote and secure the realization of the right to development through appropriate and enabling national and international action is essential. Should I stop here and ask for questions, or would you like me to move to—

No, I would suggest you move on. It would be best if we take questions at the end.

So with that context, we can now proceed to the explicit articulation in Part 1, Article 1, of the object and purpose of this treaty. Now having foregrounded the context, the legal, the practical, the policy context of the right to development, we make no room for trying to infer object and purpose from the preamble, but rather weave them together into one explicit statement that says that the object and purpose of the Covenant is to promote and ensure the full, equal, and meaningful enjoyment of the right to development by every individual and all peoples everywhere, and to guarantee its effective operationalization and full implementation at the national and international levels. Now, in the standard relevance of object and purpose under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, naming the object and purpose is crucial. As the commentaries point out, the object and purpose of a treaty is important for the interpretation of a treaty. It is important in determining— Thank you. What the consequences might be of treaties that might, or subsequent obligations that are taken up by states that might repudiate the object and purpose of this treaty. For states that sign a treaty in the first instance without having yet ratified the treaty, under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, the most basic obligation is not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. So stipulating all of these from a technical standpoint are important because we do know that in the, in the many experiences, especially with human rights treaties, when there have been any concerns with respect to the object and purpose of a treaty, that has tended to be referred to dispute settlement and interpretation by a third party.

Thank you.

Parties. So one example of that would be the Genocide Convention, where it had to go to the International Court of Justice to elicit the object and purpose from the preamble of that convention. So here we do not have to be concerned about trying to extrapolate that object and purpose, but it is already stipulated in advance for clarity. We now proceed to Article 2. The definitions The definitions here are fairly uncontroversial and routine, and they are foregrounded in international law. Legal person is referred to as any entity that possesses its own legal personality under domestic or international law and is not a natural person, a people, or a state. International organization follows the canonical definition: an organization that is established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law, possessing its own international legal personality. And those are the only two definitions that really had to be clarified for purposes of the treaty based on the many discussions that we have had at the Working Group and the preferences of states to make them as encompassing as possible and to provide clarity on the roles of different actors such as legal persons and international organizations.

Thank you.

Finally, I turn to Article 3. Why do we have general principles? You'll find in the practice, in the treaty practices of states, especially in the international environmental law state space as well as the international economic law space, there are references to general principles because where there is a heavy emphasis on implementation, it is always helpful to have a set set of general principles as a guide for states that are seeking to implement treaty commitments. And so to this end, this guidance is provided, resonant of those practices in other domains of international law, in order to provide guidance for the interpretation, guidance for the implementation, and as a way for States to further clarify how the right to development and its expansiveness actually does prioritize certain aspects, which is why in the first principle we look at how development has to be centered on individuals and peoples as central subjects and not just beneficiaries. That— that reifies the interpretation of policies and measures that could be taken in the name of development, but may not necessarily involve individuals and peoples. And that, for us, has had to be clarified as a general principle. The second is a principle that is common to all human rights and is not always often spelled out, and it has to be interpreted—

Okay.

Sorry. No, not at all. And has to be interpreted with respect to all other human rights in their indivisibility, universality, interdependence, and interrelatedness. The other aspects involve human rights-based development, which is elaborated fully here, the contribution of development itself to the enjoyment of all human life— human rights, rather, self-determined development, principles of international law and friendly relations. Sustainable Excuse me. development and the right and the duty to regulate, which we will welcome questions on, but I think this has already had substantial practices in various domains in international law. National and international solidarity, which are principles that were also very much vivid in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as the work of the independent expert, on international solidarity. And then there are also principles on South-South and triangular cooperation as a complement to North-South cooperation. And finally, the universal duty to respect human rights right alongside the responsibility of individuals, peoples, groups, and organs to promote and protect human rights. And with this, we we can conclude this discussion.

Thanks a lot, Diane, for that exhaustive discussion. What I'd like to do now is to present very briefly Part 2, which comprises 4 provisions on the content of the right to development and its relationship with other rights, and then we can open up the floor for questions, comments, suggestions of clarification. Points of clarification. And while I do this, I would already take the opportunity to address some of the questions that we have received in writing before from certain delegations, so that we are all on the same page. So Article 4, as was pointed out, is the right to development. It's titled the right to development, and this is really the core substantive element of the treaty. What does it include? Yes. Right? What is the scope, nature, and content of the right to development? And it begins by saying every individual and all peoples have the inalienable right to development, by virtue of which they are entitled to three things: the right to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy civil, cultural, economic, environmental, political, and social development that is indivisible from and interdependent and interrelated with all other human human rights and fundamental freedoms. And the second paragraph is again a reiteration, but very important component, that every individual and all peoples have the right to active, free, and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom. Now, to address a particular question that we have been— given in writing, relates to a point we have discussed already yesterday and in many other sessions of the expert mechanism, which is about the collective dimensions of the right to development. Now, for me, as I pointed out, it's not even a question that is subject to a legal discussion because international law is absolutely clear. All countries have accepted the right of all peoples to development. This follows from Article 1 that is common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the very first article, where countries have unanimously agreed that all peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they, meaning people, freely determine their political status and I quote, "freely pursue the realization of their social, economic, cultural development." So it's not even a question that should be open for any discussion on whether collective dimensions of the right to development exist. It's there, everyone's unanimously accepted that in Article 1 that is common to the two covenants. Now, as I pointed out yesterday as well, As an expert mechanism, we understand that there are concerns, sometimes validly so, that some governments may abuse the idea of collective rights to undermine individual rights. And they may do so with the idea that, look, individual rights need to be curbed in the larger public interest. But the point that also we have made again and again is that the fear of abuse of a right is not a tenable reason to deny the existence of that right. Even individual rights can be abused to violate other individual rights. We don't leap to a conclusion that because individual rights can be abused to violate other individual rights, they shouldn't exist. And so there is no reason to say that collective rights should not exist simply because there's a potential to abuse. Any human right can be abused, for that matter. The point, additionally, is that international law already gives us enough guidance on how to reconcile tensions between collective rights and individual rights should they arise. Last year, we, as an expert mechanism, submitted a study to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly. Exploring this aspect. There is enough international jurisprudence, particularly from the African system and from the Inter-American system, on how to reconcile this tension. In some cases, individual rights have been preferred over collective rights. In other cases, collective rights have been preferred over individual rights. We have all gone through this during the COVID-19 pandemic, where our individual right to freedom of movement was restricted during lockdowns in the larger public public interest. So none of this is really novel. There are 5 articles in the ICCPR which are specifically singled out for limitations in the larger public interest. There are no other human rights in the ICCPR that are subject to limitations. So we have enough guidance on this. Now there's a confession I must make because I think this is in the last— we are in the last stage of the process for the adoption of the 1986 Declaration. And this is hopefully, from my personal perspective, having witnessed the negotiations for over 4 years in Geneva, an attempt to finally, hopefully iron out this difference between groups of states on collective rights. And this comes from anecdotes during the negotiations on this draft in Geneva. Every time when colleagues from the European Union in particular would make a comment that we recognize the right to development only if it is considered an individual right. I would consistently have a group of delegates, particularly from the African continent but not only, who would come to me absolutely infuriated. Why? Because the African Charter— the African regional system is African Charter on Human and People's Rights. So every time they would hear a statement from the delegation of the European Union that we do not recognize collective dimensions. What the African delegations, the delegations from Inter-American System, from the Asia are hearing is that only the European idea of human rights is worthy enough to be accepted at the international level. Your ideas, your collective rights ideas should not— they are not meritorious enough to be recognized at the international level. This can be entirely avoided.

Thank you.

This can be entirely avoided based on the study that we have submitted last year to the Council. Kindly go through that. There are ways of reconciling collective rights and individual rights without, without rejecting the existence of the collective dimensions of human rights. It already exists in international law. Now, very briefly, there is Article 5, which is about the relationship with the right of peoples to self-determination. Self-determination. And here again, I would like to address a concern that has been raised previously. There is a misunderstanding generally that right to self-determination is about secession from existing, uh, inter— existing territories, existing countries. Yes, that is an extreme end of the spectrum possibility in terms of self-determination, but self-determination is much, much more than that. Again, there is enough jurisprudence from various jurisdictions. We have the Quebec case from Canada, which came up with the idea of internal self-determination, external self-determination. We have the Katanga case from the African system, which have explained the circumstances, the extreme end of the spectrum circumstances where secession becomes a part of self-determination. In any case, we were very cognizant of how international law has evolved in the context of self-determination. So after the references to the right to development implying the full realization of the right of all peoples to self-determination, we have the 6th paragraph, which again comes from existing international law, particularly the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration, which says nothing contained in the present covenant, kindly note the language, nothing, contained in the present covenant shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair totally or in part the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of —any any kind. Each State Party shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State. None of this is new language. None of this was created by the expert, uh, drafting group. It already exists in international law. Please check out the commentaries for the multiple sources on this. Another very important concern that has been raised to us is that somehow the draft covenant prioritizes development rights over civil and political rights, or it prioritizes, or let's say even undermines civil and political rights. So we often hear statements being made that the right to development should not be used as a pretext for violating civil and political rights. Obviously, that is correct. It shouldn't be used as a pretext, and the draft covenant in fact guarantees that such an undermining of civil and political rights is not possible in the name of development. So Article 6 is specifically for that purpose. Relationship with other human rights. States parties reaffirm that all human rights, including the right to development, are universal, inalienable, interrelated, interdependent, indivisible, and— Excuse me. Equally important. States parties agree that the right to development is an integral part of human rights and must be realized in conformity with the full range of civil, cultural, economic, environmental, political, and social rights. So I do hope that this point is not raised again, that the— somehow the draft covenant allows development to be pursued in a way that undermines civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. In fact, the Covenant is explicit that it does not allow such an eventuality. And then there is Article 7, which is a relationship with the responsibility of everyone to respect human rights under international law. I would urge delegates to look at the commentary. I won't discuss this unless there is— there are questions on this. But basically, as we know, international law recognizes obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill on states, but there is an obligation recognized on everyone to do no harm, to respect human rights of others, if not to protect and fulfill. But each of us, everyone, legal entities have an obligation to do no harm, to respect human rights of others. Again, the commentaries on Article 7 are exhaustive. It's probably the longest part of the commentary, so I would urge delegates to look at that. So with that, kindly permit me to open up the floor, Madam Chair, to the delegates. If there are any questions regarding what we have discussed, or if there are any other questions, we are happy to address them at this stage. Thank you. I do have a list of speakers that has been handed over to me, so I give the floor now to to the delegate from Zimbabwe. No? All right. Then I give the floor now to the delegate from Malawi.

No?

I don't believe the delegate is in the room, so Okay, the delegate from Cuba.

Thank you. Gracias, señor.

Thank you, sir. I'm extremely grateful for the organization of this interactive dialogue. We know that we've got difficult days here in New York.— and we have had a lot of meetings at the same time. There's been 3 or 4 meetings of different issues, and we regret not being able to be present at all of the meetings of the expert mechanism, but we would like to express our full support to the expert mechanism, and we thank the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on the Right to Development for their work. Before I ask some questions, I'd just like to express my appreciation generally and my thanks also in general to the distinguished panelists. Thank you all for your briefings. In particular, Mr. Adrian and Mr. Kanal, thank you. This is the 5th or 6th time that I've had the pleasure to listen to you talk about the compact and it's a real pleasure because every time you do it you— [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] talk it from the point of view of satisfaction of being a comprehensive part and living through the drafting process of the Compact. Now, for a developing country like Cuba that is also proud to be a coordinator of the Working Group on Human Rights of the Non-Aligned Movement, the right to development is— [SPEAKING SPANISH] —of the utmost importance. And we want to make sure that the 40th anniversary of the Covenant— of the Covenant doesn't slip through our fingers, and this is under the relevant resolution of the Human Rights Council, which is very important. And we are also closely paying attention to some of the initial comments that have been made over the last 3 years. There's been 6 sessions of the Human Rights Council where— well, since the covenant negotiations have been submitted to New York, and there are differing points of views on the text. So we agree with you that the text that we have here from the Human Rights Council resolution is not a zero draft. It's the result of an extensive extensive consultations process that took place in Geneva. As such, if I may, I'd like to ask you— [SPEAKING GERMAN] —if you could tell the room exactly how the rounds of consultations were and what were the main thematic areas that were debated, the main elements, the main clusters that you think were the main issues of concern and how they were addressed in the general explanations. Above and beyond the general comments on this. Now, the— I'd like to know, and I don't know if you want to respond now or later, whether you believe that Article 33 of the Covenant on Reserves gives enough comfort for states that may have specific concerns on the Compact, and if it provides for these concerns to be resolved. So these are the two—

Thank you.

Main questions that I wanted to put on the table and ask you and just reiterate again our full support to you. And thank you once again, Madam Vice Chair, for convening this meeting. And thank you also to the experts for all of your explanations. Thank you.

Thank you for raising those questions, and we are very happy to address them. But let's take a few more comments or questions. I now give the floor to the respected delegate from the Philippines.

Thank you so much. So as this is the first time taking the floor in the session, I'm Charlene from the Mission of the Republic of the Philippines. The Philippines aligns itself with the positions of the Non-Aligned Movement and thanks expert mechanism and of course, the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development, as well as the drafting group, which made a very clear and comprehensive presentation. Thank you. So the Philippines reaffirms our consistent support, including in the UN Human Rights Council, for advancing the oper— opera— sorry, operationalization of the right to development. This right for us is universal, inalienable, and integral, with the human person at its center, and remains a cornerstone of the international human rights and development architecture. Human rights and development are, for us, mutually reinforcing, independent, and indivisible, and are essential to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its realization requires a rights-based, participatory, inclusive, transparent, accountable approach anchored in leaving no one behind, with states bearing the primary responsibility to ensure its full enjoyment, especially for those in vulnerable situations. At the national level, this commitment of the Philippines is reflected in Ambisyon Natin 2040 and our Philippine Development Plan for 2023 to 2028. At the regional level, we also highlight the ASEAN Declaration Promoting the Right to Development, and the right to peace towards realizing inclusive and sustainable development, which reinforces shared commitments to inclusive and sustainable growth. The Philippines underscores that the right to development is both a means and an end, requiring an enabling international environment grounded in sovereign equality, mutual respect, and international solidarity. International cooperation must therefore support constrain national policy space while addressing global challenges such as climate change, public health crisis, and inequalities. Excellencies and colleagues, we see value in advancing discussions towards this legally binding instrument that strengthens implementation and accountability while ensuring coherence with existing frameworks. As a draft international covenant proceeds to the UN General Assembly, we emphasize that this step technical exercise should inform without prejudging in intergovernmental negotiations. In particular, we just note the inclusion of Articles 3 on general principles, as well as the 4 to 7, which was very clearly presented by Professor de Cierto. We do note that these articles are very helpful in helping State parties to implement the provisions and laying out these principles, their relationship with other instruments. We support that the language used in this draft covenant remain unequivocal, which means it's not subject to any other interpretation, which could really be difficult when it comes to implementing and interpreting. Thank you. To conclude, the Philippines remains committed to constructive engagement towards a balanced and widely supported covenant. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the respected delegate from Mexico.

Gracias, señor presidente. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, experts. Mexico would like to make a few General comments on the draft International Covenant on the Right to Development. The scope of this instrument includes a whole raft of extremely relevant themes. Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that several of these aspects have already been subject to regulation by way of legally binding instruments already in force. These normative frameworks are the result of exhaustive negotiations and are governed by the principle of progressivity, and this has enabled significant progress to be made. In this regard, for us, it's essential that under the perspective of the right to development, we prioritize complementarity between this draft covenant and existing instruments in order to safeguard the coherence of the international legal framework that gave rise to them. The strengthening of the right to development must focus on promoting a more effective, coherent, and results-based implementation of international commitments that have already been made. It's essential to avoid duplication, institutional fragmentation, or the imposition of additional burdens that do not lead to concrete benefits for developing countries. This is why, for us, it would be beneficial to adopt an approach that prioritized the effective implementation as well as adequate follow-up and translation of international commitments into tangible public policies. Rather than the proliferation of new normative formulations, it's necessary to ensure that existing obligations are applicable and in line with the real implementation capacities of states. Furthermore, we observe that some provisions of the text have a lack of clarity in them. As a result, it would be beneficial to improve its drafting to avoid redundancies, to prevent ambiguities, and to precisely outline the enforceability of the normative scenarios. The novel nature of this legal instrument requires particular attention from the authorities involved in the negotiation of the covenant. It's essential to carefully assess its operability in order to avoid future questioning and to prevent possible attributions of international responsibility to states for a lack of compliance. Thank you. This will be crucial once the Covenant enters into full force. Disregarding its complementary nature could generate meaningful stumbling blocks to its implementation and compromise its efficacy and cause uncertainty, legal uncertainty, both for operators as well as for those to whom the regulation applies. Madam Chair, Mexico reiterates its preparedness to participate constructively in the negotiations of the Covenant and stands stands ready to present specific comments in line with the provisions of Resolution 5418 of the Human Rights Council that decides to subject the consideration of this draft covenant to the General Assembly for— with a view to its eventual adoption. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias. I now give the floor to the respected delegate of the European Union.

Thank you. I'm afraid I have prepared general comments, which as we heard is apparently not always so appreciated, but it seemed the most appropriate for this forum. We were a bit surprised to see the topic on the agenda of the expert mechanism since there used to be a very clear division of labor between the working group and the expert mechanism. But at the same time, I really appreciate the opportunity to hear from the people so familiar with the text and gain insights from yourselves because that was very enlightening. So thank you for that and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Obviously, the position of the European Union towards the draft legally binding instrument that came out of Geneva is well known. We're not endorsing this document. We are not comfortable with it. Now, from what I hear here, we are a bit cast in the role of a villain and I think it would be always useful if the villain stays quiet and then everyone can project their maybe frustrations, maybe understandings onto them. So please also acknowledge that I am here to engage. I was here throughout the two days. I'm hoping to be here for the whole session, trying to learn, trying to understand where people are coming from. It's sometimes easier to stay quiet, especially if you're negotiating on behalf of a whole group. For us, especially when it comes to this being a legally binding instrument and not only, in inverted commas, a resolution, it's a very heavy process for for me to even be able to speak on behalf of our member states. So that partly also explains why we're not the most reactive. This is a slow supertanker in every negotiation, but in particularly— in particular when it is about a legally binding instrument, which is obviously the stakes are much higher here. Coming to this, so concerns remain. I'm not going to go into detail here in line with this being general comments, but we feel that the focus has shifted from what we had in the Declaration on the Right development where we had aspects like equality, social reform, public participation that are very inwards facing. Now the duty to cooperate being very pronounced in the new document. I understand that this is by design and it was referred to as things that came out of the evolution in the 40 years in between, but it's certainly a concern on our side. We also feel that there is, despite all the statements we heard in the last few days about the interconnectedness and intertwinedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, there is a vision to elevate the right to development over other rights, which again is something that we're not comfortable with, that we struggle with. I see there is often at the UN a tendency to bring important initiatives in a bit of a rush. We tend to have a lull and then a sudden burst of activity, especially on important things, and very often I think that's— Thank you. Out of necessity. There's many chefs in the kitchen, there's a lot of attention, suddenly the dam breaks and we bring something and we try to rush it through. I hear now that this might in this case also be by design with the thought that there's no longer any point in negotiation, the European Union will never be convinced. Well, if we're casting this light of engaging in any possible negotiation in bad faith, then indeed there is not much left to do, but a decision will need to be made whether we should have another opportunity to discuss us or whether it goes ahead as it is, which we would find very unfortunate. I reject the notion that we are only here to perform, to pretend that we have concerns, to just delay the process or block the process. There are valid concerns and I hear when it's questioned whether certain questions should even still be askable. I think our whole job here at the UN is ask questions until ideally everyone feels comfortable enough to reach consensus, unless we don't want consensus from the get-go, in which case that's a whole different way of approaching the process in a way, but it cannot go both ways. So I wanted to share these, I would almost say, personal insights after listening, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you very much to all the delegates who have spoken. I don't have any other names on my list. Yes, please.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished experts. We value— I'm from Bonaire Human Rights NGO. We value and recognize the contribution from all experts, and in our case, these contributions may carry particular significance because they speak directly to the realities that are not post-colonial but ongoing our realities. We align with the Declaration on the Right of Development and the commitment to leave no one behind, yet for listed and non-listed non-self-governing territories as Bonaire, this principle remains only partially realized. Most— much of the global development framework assumes that decolonization is complete. However, the draft covenant itself clearly recognizes that colonialism, foreign domination, and denial of self-determination remain main obstacles to development. For Bonaire, development is not only about socioeconomic progress. It is fundamentally linked to political status, self-determination, and equal participation. The government affirms that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue development. And? The administering states have obligations toward these territories to uphold these rights. Yet in practice, territories like Bonaire experience limited influence over development policies, structural inequalities and resource balance— structural inequalities in governance and resource control, and pressures on cultural identity, language, and demographic balance. That raises a fundamental concern: if peoples cannot fully participate in determining their development path, can the right to development truly be realized? To genuinely leave no one behind, the international community must move beyond a purely state-centric and post-colonial framework and explicitly address territories that are living on unresolved colonial arrangement. That's why we call to recognition of non-self-governed territories, non-listed, as distinct right holders, integration of self-determination into development policy frameworks and mechanisms, ensuring their direct and meaningful participation in international decision-making processes. Without this, structural exclusion will persist. To question to the— Mechanism. How will the expert mechanism ensure that the right to development is effectively operationalized for listed and unlisted non-self-governing territories where the realization of development is directly constrained by unresolved political status and limited self-determination? And the last question, what concrete mechanisms can be established to ensure the peoples of territories like us Bonaire can exercise active, free, and meaningful participation as required under the draft Covenant in shaping development policies that affect their future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments and questions that have been raised. Raised, and I'll request my colleague Diane also to contribute to this, but let me first address the question that was raised by a colleague from Cuba, which is what was the process for the negotiations over 4 years, and I've already explained that at the beginning. Ambassador Akram has also explained— the whole process, but let me highlight the key themes that were subject to discussions and debates in Geneva. One was obviously on the question of individual and collective rights. As we know, there has been opposition, particularly from the European Union, on this issue. Yes.— and we obviously made a lot of attempts to clarify the legal aspects of collective rights because it's not just Article 1. There is so much jurisprudence available from regional courts, you know, the indigenous peoples' disputes where the whole— the idea of peoples as rights holders has been amply discussed. Discussed and developed through regional courts. And that obviously is, you know, the collective and individual dimensions are a core aspect of the right to development. The history of collective rights came in the post-colonial period when the individual right to ownership by the oligarchs from the colonial countries was used as a pretext to deny collective ownership over natural resources of the post-colonial country. This is not your gold, this is not your gold, there are no individual right to gold, and it was for this reason that the argument of collective rights of a people to their natural resources emerged. So it is very important to recognize this history of collective rights, where it comes from, and also the ideology that I cannot be dissociated from the we. This is core Ubuntu, that I exist in the context of the we. So I would highly urge that, you know, when we take positions rejecting collective dimensions of the right to development, we must be aware of what we are rejecting. We are rejecting the experience of a post-colonial state. We are rejecting civilizational concepts of human rights. And for many countries, this is nothing but a reiteration of their experiences in the past. So it is a very important thing that I would— I have witnessed personally. I have seen the frustration of many delegations in Geneva when this discussion comes up. And frankly, to my mind, this can be entirely avoided. It's an entirely avoidable controversy. We can find ways of reconciling the tensions between individual and collective rights without getting into these positions. The second issue that was discussed, but relatively non-controversial, at least from the countries that participated, was on coercive measures, because as we know, international law— in the resolutions from the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the standard phrasing is that unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law are prohibited. They constitute a violation of human rights. But obviously this is a treaty, so we couldn't just go with unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law. Fortunately for us, and somehow it's not been as obvious to the General Assembly or the Council, there is a definition of coercive measures which comes from the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration, which has been asserted by the International Court of Justice as customary international law and therefore legally binding. So we— when we explained that and explained the source in in the commentaries, that was readily accepted. So there was no controversy on that. The relationship with other human rights, again, was a debate that took place for the expert group. There was nothing debatable here because we always approach the issue of right to development from the perspective that no trade-off is permitted with any other human right, as is the case with any other human rights. You can— when we say all human rights are interdependent, mutually reinforcing, it means that you cannot advance one human right at the cost of the other. And so, in our work, for example, we have explained that a water pipeline project that is installed to ensure water to the rural part of the country, which is suffering from a drought, cannot be justified as an enhancement of right to development simply because you are providing water if the lands of poor farmers are forcibly taken without compensation, without consultation in order to install that water pipeline. You can't have the realization of one right in the name of development if it comes at the cost of something else. This is in fact the objective of the covenant. In terms of the duty to cooperate, Again, there is— I pointed out that certain provisions follow from framework convention styles. Paragraph 1 of Article 13, for example, is what is mentioned in the UN Charter. There's nothing new in that. We don't reject the UN Charter on the ground that it is ambiguous when it talks about international cooperation. So it is from that, and a lot of what follows thereafter is from the 2030 Agenda, the means of implementation targets in the 2030 Agenda, which are also consensual, which is consensual language. And if you take a look at the provision itself, it is an obligation which is in the nature of best endeavor. There are no quantifiable targets. there are no benchmarks as such, but obviously the duty to cooperate is central to the realization of right to development. Let me take the opportunity before I give it to Diane to point out a couple of other things. We were asked by a specific delegation, I believe the delegation from Colombia, on whether the Article 13 on the duty to cooperate to cooperate is an obligation of conduct or is an obligation of result. And this question is very interesting because international law, particularly the International Law Commission, has rejected the idea of responsibility of states being understood in the context of obligations of conduct or obligations of result. In fact, in 1977, when the debates took place on the articles on state responsibility— as you know, it took over 40 years for the articles on state responsibility to be debated— Roberto Argo, who was the special rapporteur of the commission at that time, had proposed the introduction of the language of obligation of conduct and obligation of result into the articles on state responsibility. And many of the lawyers, particularly from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, such as James Crawford, who is one of the most important legal scholars of our times, they were very vociferous in their rejection of the idea of obligations of conduct and obligation of result. The long story short is that as a result of this lack of agreement, the International Law Commission rejected that they did not accept and incorporate the idea of obligation of conduct and obligation of result. So when we look at the duty to cooperate under Article 13 or under the draft covenant, it is important to go back to the study of this expert mechanism which we prepared last year elaborating on the scope, nature, and content of duty to cooperate. And what we pointed out there is that it is extremely important that each case is taken on a case-by-case basis, precisely because what the duty to cooperate would mean in a particular instance would vary. To give you an example, unilateral coercive measures are also a failure to abide by the duty to cooperate. That is a much simpler question to answer in terms of whether there's a violation or not— there is— as compared to the obligation to cooperate with each other to negotiate the elimination of harmful provisions in the intellectual property rights agreement. Thank you.— that's a different thing altogether. There, obviously, it is not a unilateral duty to cooperate or a bilateral duty to cooperate, but in a multilateral setting which requires reciprocity. So the more multilateral the setting is, obviously, the duty to cooperate needs to be contextualized in that because there's more reciprocity necessary for that. The final point I'll make, and I again think this is important to assuage certain concerns of colleagues from certain parts of the world, which is the provision relating to gender equality and empowerment of women and girls. And we did hear a particular objection to this last year as well from an NGO. Here in New York, and the specific objection comes to the paragraph G of Sub-Article 3, which talks about ensuring equal and equitable access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Now, this is an objection which we have heard before, obviously, in Geneva as well, but it was clarified to delegations that this is a different language than what what they find otherwise to be objectionable language based on their own ideas or ideologies. The common term SRHR refers to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. And when this word— the concept is framed in this way, it basically means that the word health and rights qualifies both the terms sexual and reproductive. So we are talking about sexual health and rights, reproductive health and rights, when the— when the framing is sexual and reproductive health and rights. Please take a careful look at the language in this paragraph, which is exactly identical to the language in the 2030 Agenda, which borrows from the Beijing— all the way from the Beijing Declaration, because there has been an agreement a consensus that the wording should not be sexual and reproductive health and rights, but sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. We are not talking here about sexual rights, which may be controversial to, to some countries, right? We're not talking about sexual rights. So it is sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. This is the phrasing, and it's a consensual language from the 2030 Agenda. Last year in December, I had the opportunity to be invited by the human rights— permanent human rights institution of the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Communities, in Jeddah, and I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the commissioners. and it was readily agreeable to them. They ended up even supporting in their formal declaration the process of supporting the draft covenant as it stands. So this is one area which I really wanted to clarify. Last year, one of the organizations, civil society organizations, somehow wanted to interpret this as permitting child pornography, somehow permitting abortion. None of it is said here. Sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. And as we know, this is language already existing in international law. Countries are at liberty, even within countries, states, if you have federal structure, is at liberty to determine whether they want to allow abortion or not. International law does not impose any such requirements. It is on states states to interpret this the way they want to. I'm going to hand over the floor to Diane for particularly the question related to harmonious interpretation and on reservations, and then I may add something more.

Thank you, Professor Kanade, and thank you for the questions and comments that were raised. Let me just preface my remarks on reservations and harmonious interpretation with, I think, a technical clarification that has to be made and that might assist with everyone's deliberations on the text of the treaty. The concerns that are articulated here echo very much concerns that were initially raised in Geneva, and we made the same clarifications at that point in time, so this might be helpful. I point first and foremost to the concern about ambiguity and how how there could be an attribution of international responsibility. I think we have to unpack this concept first, because it is a long stretch to get to any conclusion of international responsibility. We must first characterize an internationally wrongful act, which is why the text is supremely important in what it calls upon states to do. The verbs that were used in terms of what states were expected to do here were purposely patterned after human rights treaties that already contained these undertakings. And so they did not create new undertakings that were not already what states themselves embraced. But even to try and get to a conclusion of international responsibility, which I understand will— is is always a legitimate concern. International responsibility presupposes that none of the interpretive, the factual, the jurisdictional, the secondary defenses available to states, which is extensive, will ever be applicable. And so to make any inference from text alone that there will be internationally response— international responsibility in the legal sense is quite premature. The text itself is flexibly structured to provide enough room for interpretation within the sphere of international human rights practices, and that is something that we anticipate. That's why in the provision in Article 25, I think, on harmonious interpretation, we do expect I expect that there will be extensive reference to what states themselves are already practicing and will call for harmonious interpretation of what states are already practicing. That is why the emphasis on indivisibility and interdependence is present. I will also add that even from a conclusion of international responsibility, it's also not so easy to get to the point of any conclusion of international liability, because then it enters into the question of any concept of reparative measures that are available for any potential or adjudicated international responsibility. And in the, in the spectrum of international human rights law in particular, there has not been a significant preponderance of reparations that have been insurmountable or in themselves have not had the support of states themselves. So this leads me also to the questions regarding the reservations that were raised on Article 33. Article 33 simply confirms what is on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that reservations can be entered into treaties at any time unless the treaty itself specifically prohibits entering a reservation. We make it more explicit that reservations could be entered. They could also be withdrawn at any time. But the minimal requirement that is also found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is that a reservation must not be incompatible— must not be— must be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. If it's incompatible, incompatible, it's an invalid reservation. That is why it's also helpful that we pointed out the object and purpose of the treaty itself. Finally, I think one thing that I do want to respond to is on our— the framing of the entire context behind this treaty took into account global practices as they have emerged in the international system, the regional national systems. I also will add, insofar as the tension on individual and collective dimensions, common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR has two aspects. The language says, first, it's free determination of political status, but the next language says the free pursuit of economic, social, cultural development. It's very different. The language of determine is very different from the language of pursuit. And no less than the International Court of Justice, in its recognition of the right to self-determination as a jus cogens norm, itself made that difference, separated out that first phrase in Common Article 1 with the second phrase of Common Article 2. It is not, therefore, an outcome based determination because we're looking at free pursuit of economic, social, cultural rights and the right to self-determination. And finally, just on the question with respect to elevating this right over other rights, I actually think the harmonious interpretation provision coupled with the context of the general principles as well as the preamble make it very clear that this is not creating another Jus Cogens norm, but rather reconciles what is already extant in international human rights law— civil, political, economic, social, cultural rights, individual as well as collective rights— for the three acts that I referred to in Article 4, Paragraph 1: participation, contribution, and enjoyment. The first two, participation and contribution, are process-related aspects of development. The enjoyment part is not the process aspect related, but the outcome-related development. But even that, as pointed out in the later parts on statistics, on impact assessments, on the concerns about how to do an implementation mechanism, that focus on the outcome is intended to be dialogic, and that was clear in all of those years that we were discussing in Geneva, which is why the provision here is not for a treaty-based accountability mechanism, but for states themselves to create the implementation mechanism that would be part of the ongoing dialogue to realize the right to development. I very much hope these clarifications would be of assistance and would not be an impediment. Thank you. Impediment for the necessary political and diplomatic dialogue that in the end it is the states that are responsible for. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Diane, for that. I may just add in terms of particularly a question that was raised by the respected delegate from Mexico about potentially this treaty leading to tensions with other existing international obligations. My colleague Diane has already pointed out Article 25, which is a harmonious interpretation, but I want to stress on paragraph 3 thereof, which says, subject to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, the provisions of the present covenant shall not affect the rights and obligations of any state party deriving from any existing international law. The present paragraph is not intended to create a hierarchy between the present covenant and other international law. So again, I would request that kindly refer to the commentaries which explains each of these provisions in detail, the source of international law from where they, they are derived. Now let me finally, finally address the question on the treaty treaty bodies that was raised, and the delegate from Egypt also, before she left for another engagement, requested a clarification on the structure of the treaty bodies that are created or proposed under this particular covenant, which are different from the structure of committees that you generally find under human rights treaties. So as the commentaries explain, this is a sui generis structure, and the sui generis structure of the treaty bodies that are established in the draft covenant departs from the traditional committees, which are the compliance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms under the current core human rights treaties. And this is based on several important factors. That we have elaborated in the commentaries, but I'll just highlight a few of them. It draws from— the structure draws from the best practices adopted in these human rights treaty bodies, as well as in treaties from other special regimes, in sync with the duty to cooperate underpinning the right to development. This The sort of sui generis mechanism is based on a cooperative model rather than an adversarial one. This was very important during the initial stages of the drafting. When we sent out the initial questionnaire, there were certain concerns raised by countries both from the North and the South that we do not want a duplicative mechanism, committee, another committee where we report. Because the nature of development is such that it can relate to economic, social, cultural rights, it can relate to rights of women, it can relate to disabilities, it can relate to civil and political rights. So it would be difficult to do the reporting on the same basis what we have done already in other existing committees. So we did have to create a sui generis mechanism for this. Another important factor The second factor was that this mechanism or this— the idea of conference of states parties and an implementing mechanism takes into account the existence and continued relevance of the Working Group on the Right to Development, which is already an intergovernmental body which was established by the Erstwhile Commission on Human Rights in 1998 and which continues to play an indispensable role in the promotion of the right to Development. And so we— when we thought of the Conference of States Parties, it would be a continuation of the Working Group on the Right to Development rather than a duplicative body. It also takes into account the establishment of the expert mechanism on the right to development, which are 5 experts, and so to add on to that a separate committee in the traditional would have meant simple duplication of many different experts and mandates, and obviously no one wants that. So the idea is to streamline, and again, hopefully, the expert mechanism would be converted into the implementing mechanism under the treaty, which is why we recommend 5 experts for the implementation mechanism, which would be a continuation of the expert mechanism as we have it today. Also, I think, I mean, it was very important and states did point out that it's important to take into account the practical dimensions such as ensuring the best utilization of the available secretarial and financial resources to support the new treaty bodies. So instead of creating completely new bodies that would put a further strain strain on an already financially depleted United Nations system, we decided to adopt this structure based on existing mechanisms. Now, both the Conference of States Parties as well as the implementation mechanism envisaged under this draft covenant pay special attention to consideration of obstacles faced by States Parties to the realization of the right to development. Thank you.— including those resulting from conduct of other States or international organizations. The generation of comprehensive information on the obstacles that States Parties face, especially those emanating externally, is a significant value added over existing mechanisms under other treaty bodies, and this avoids duplication. Most existing treaty bodies are inward-looking on countries that they are dealing with. The reports of which they are dealing with. But what the focus of this Conference of States Parties is also external dimensions, the extraterritorial impacts of actions by, by countries and also international organizations. So there is a value added. It's different from traditional bodies. It also catalyzes awareness of factors necessary for informed international cooperation to realize the right to development for all. There are also reasons behind mandating the Implementation Mechanism to review requests by rights holders to comment on situations in which their right to development has been adversely affected by the failure of States to comply with the duty to cooperate. This is important. Again, as with other treaty bodies, they look for violations of States' on internally, the implementation mechanism's ability to review requests, again subject to permission from the— or the scope as defined from the Conference of States Parties, is focused on the duty to cooperate, which is not a part of any other treaty body. Okay, so this avoids duplication as well. There is no complaints mechanism for individuals or groups included in the draft for reasons that have been explained in the commentaries, without foreclosing the possibility of willing countries to establish an additional protocol, optional protocol, at a subsequent stage, should they wish to do so. This is standard practice in all existing human rights treaties. An interstate dispute resolution procedure before the International Court of Justice is incorporated. However, very importantly, this is also important for states, is that this is subject only to agreement between the parties to the dispute. No compulsory jurisdiction is vested in the International Court of Justice under this draft covenant, again, as explained in the commentaries. And finally, what the implementation mechanism can do, because this was one of the questions raised also by the delegate, from Colombia in the written comments that we have received is, would this expert mechanism, the implementation mechanism, have the powers to issue recommendations like the— or issue interpretations like the other treaty bodies have been doing? Is there a compulsory reporting requirement by states? And we had to explain that none of that is necessary. There is no compulsory reporting requirement, periodic reporting, as is required under other treaties. The reporting here is to be done to the Conference of States Parties and is entirely voluntary. What the Implementation Mechanism as a subsidiary body of the Conference of States Parties can do and cannot do is to be determined by the Conference of States Parties itself. So what the Covenant says is that the Conference of States Parties shall define the rules of procedure, the scope of the work, of the implementation mechanism. So with that, I will stop my response and give the floor to Isabelle.

Oui, merci, je vais parler en français. Thank you. I'll speak French. Thank you, Amir, and thank you for the presentation, the clarifications that you provided. As an expert who indeed drafted this text as part of the working group, even if today he's also an expert in the expert mechanism. And I would like to, on this, be clear that the clarification, the legal clarification that you've provided and that Diana has just done as well, is something I hope will help you in your work coming. It's not a plea, though. I think the expert mechanism isn't carrying out unilateral advocacy for the text as it is, but it's trying to give you the material that will then allow you to negotiate on it. Because as you said so well, of course it's a legal text, and it's a legally binding text. Of course, it's— these are legal questions, but it's not just— a legal issue, it's a diplomatic, a political one. So the aim is to find consensus, and to do that, of course, we need to be able to hear the legitimate comments that some people could have on interpretations, different ways of understanding this, ways of implementing and enjoying all the human rights, right to development, collective rights, individual rights, etc. So simply on behalf of the expert mechanism, I just wanted to say that we're not here to drive this text through with a unilateral view of it, but rather what we're trying to do here is to provide legal clarifications on references to other existing texts, jurisprudence, that's the legal side of things, but the political and diplomatic side of things also is something that we need to hear and respect different views that can be put forward. And aren't necessarily illegitimate even if legally they could be disputed. That's a different issue. That's what I wanted to say at this stage, but I hope that this will nevertheless help you in the steps to come on this text and on the right to development more generally. Thank you.

Thank you, Isabelle. I understand that there are some civil society organizations who would like to take the the floor. There's a video message by Shanqi Patriotic Volunteer Association. You want me to start?

Yes.

Okay. I give the floor first to the Africa Culture Human Rights International.

Sorry. Thank you, Chair, Excellencies. 40 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to on Human Development, a landmark recognition that development is a fundamental human right belonging to every individual and every community. Today, we are engaged in translating the Declaration into legally binding convenant. This is one of the most consequential human rights undertakings of our time. I have spent my career at the intersection of international human rights frameworks and grassroots realities, the experience has taught me one thing above all: the distance between a declaration and a lived reality is vast, and it is only bridged through binding obligations, accountability mechanisms, and meaningful participation. I would like to share a memory that is always with me. During my last visit to Tanzania, I met a 25-year-old mother of 3 children who was visually impaired. Watching her navigate daily life, raising her children under profound difficulty, left a permanent mark on my heart. She was not asking for charity. She was asking what the Declaration promises— opportunity to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from development on equal terms. This is why a binding covenant matters, because declarations, however eloquent, do not reach her. Enforceable obligations might. In Burkina Faso, I have seen communities separated by language and tradition unite across those differences around a shared commitment to building something better. The draft convenant is designed with that inclusive vision, can provide the normative foundation for exactly this kind of solidarity. But the value of the convenant will depend entirely on its implementation. And this is where regional mechanism become indispensable. The African human rights system and Inter-American Court, the European human rights framework can serve as connective tissues between global aspirations and national realities. I urge this expert mechanism to consider three recommendations. First, that regional mechanism be explicitly recognized as monitoring partners and the implementation framework. Secondly, the robust civil society participation rights be built in. And the third, the convenient address intersectionality as denial of the right to development falls hardest on those already at the margins. Thank you. And the Convention must name and respond to the reality. 40 years is a long time to wait for a right to be realized. Let us not allow the Convention to become yet another declaration, eloquent as aspiration, silent on the consequences. I thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to Association Moana for Human Rights and Immigration. Okay, I don't think the delegate is in the room, so I give the floor now to Africa Center for democracy and human rights.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I just have a question on Article 2. Is it— can adding something hurt the text? For instance, Diana explained at length about the importance of regional mechanism. So why not add a definition on Article 2 to define regional mechanism? I'm talking from African perspective. For instance, you explain what African Union is doing. Define that on Article 2 won't hurt the text in my view. So, and I have also similar observation on Article 3 where it's talking about national they should be at the regional and international level, you know, law, et cetera. So that would be, in my view, would be inclusive, you know, to importance of what regional mechanisms are doing in terms of development. And I think that's basically it, because when you look at the Charter of the United Nations, itself, the Chapter 8 recognized the importance of regional arrangement. So from that perspective, from that basis, it's important to include that in the text. That's my view. I thank you.

Thank you. Just to very briefly respond to that, all of these are addressed in the commentary, so again I would urge you to rely on the commentaries which explained, for example, that the term international includes the regional, and the reasons for that are also present in the commentaries. I now— I believe that we have a video message at this point from Shanhee Patriotic Volunteer Association.

Hello.

[SPEAKING CHINESE] Mr.

Secretary-General and delegates, I'm the founder of the Shanxi Patriotic Volunteer Association International Patriotic Impact Organization. We strongly support the firmly worded provisions in the current draft. In particular, Article 14, which explicitly prohibits coercive measures and unilateral sanctions that violate sovereign equality, also Article 21, which requires countries to conduct a prior and ongoing impact assessment of the development policies. However, there remains a crucial implementation gap in the current draft text. Despite Article 14 coercive measures and Article 21 requiring impact assessments, the draft does not explicitly stipulate how to verify these assessments at the international level. Currently, Article 21 places responsibility entirely on individual countries to conduct their own assessment. It is inevitable that there will be suspicion of players being the referees. Without an objective international review mechanism, the impact assessment required by Article 21 risks becoming mere domestic paperwork, failing to prevent quote, "serious obstacles to development," unquote, such as transboundary harm or disguised protectionism mentioned in the preamble. To address this gap, we propose amending Article 28, establishing of implementation mechanism. Currently, mechanism envisioned in Article 28 is a non-advisory and non-punitive manner. We propose to strengthen the example by introducing reviews of nations' into it. The Review of Nations' Right to Development will operate as a peer review group. It's not punitive tribunal but rather a technical body operating under Article 26. Its function is to conduct an objective review of the national impact assessment stipulated in Article 21. This ensures compliance with Article 14. If a country's development policy is found to pose a serious obstacle to development of other countries through this review, it will trigger the process of International solidarity addressed in Article 30. In summary, the International Patriarchy Pact Organization believes that the draft covenant has laid a solid legal foundation by adopting the Review of Nations' Rights Development as an implementation tool. By Article 20 and 27, we can transfer the covenant from a set of principles into a vibrant global governance system. We urge the working group to consider this proposal in order to implement the to development. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to ask if there are any other delegates who may want to take the floor at this stage. I do not see any, so let me take the opportunity to address a Couple of points that have been raised. First was the question of impact assessments. The suggestion was that the draft covenant requires that only internally and could be improved by looking at the international dimensions. In fact, Article 21, which is on impact assessments, does look at international dimensions as well, States parties undertake to take appropriate steps individually and jointly, including within international organizations, to establish legal frameworks for conducting prior and ongoing assessments of actual and potential risks and impacts of their national policies, policies and practices, and international legal instruments, policies and practices, and of the conduct of legal persons, and these include businesses— that they are in a position to regulate to ensure compliance with the provisions of the present covenant. So it is clear that the obligations do arise, and obviously the obligations are to take appropriate steps to establish legal frameworks. So as my colleague, Diane, was pointing out, the language is very important here. To take appropriate steps to establish legal frameworks is a relatively soft legal language. And so that may be taken into account, especially when we characterize the covenant as either too soft or too radical.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think from my end, Diane, that's— I have answered everything, but if you would like to add anything. I believe there is a request to take the floor from Women's Federation for World Peace.

Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Your Excellencies, distinguished experts, Women's Federation for World Peace International, on behalf of our 128 national chapters, express our sincere appreciation to the chair and members of the expert mechanism for your efforts to advance the right to development to its fullest potentials. We also welcome and appreciate the space given to civil society to contribute to the full realization of this right, recognizing that inclusive engagement is essential to building a just, participatory, and sustainable development framework. We respectfully note that while the draft covenant affirms participation, solidarity, inclusion, civil society engagement, and the role of organs of society, it does not yet explicitly recognize the family within the General Principles as a foundational stakeholder in the realization of the right to development. We therefore respectfully recommend the inclusion within the General Principles of the Covenant and in the normative framework's language, affirming a whole-of-society approach that explicitly recognize the family as a foundational environment for human development and as a key contributor and stakeholder in nation-building and peace-building. If development is to be fully, truly holistic, inclusive, and sustainable, the family must be given sufficient normative and operational space at the national and local levels. The family is where values are first learned, where empathy, mutual responsibility, and respect are formed, and where the moral, emotional, and relational foundations of peaceful societies are nurtured, and it is the seed of development. It is also a primary environment for protection, care, economic empowerment, and creation of a wholesome and positive nurturing environment in which children, youth, and future citizens can flourish.

Thank you.

For this reason, we respectfully ask state— member states and encourage to not only provide the material conditions for development, but also to institutionalize peace education across the education system from early childhood onward, including family education, values formation, and emotional literacy, conflict resolution, trauma healing, and readiness for marriage before family life begins. Development cannot be fully realized if peace, security, economic empowerment, and well-being of the family are threatened as secondary concerns— I'm sorry, treated as secondary concerns. Nor can societies move forward sustainably without equal attention to healing trauma, restoring trust, strengthening the social fabric, and ensuring wholesome and positive nurturing environment in which families can thrive and contribute to the common good. We further encourage a greater space for civil society, women's organizations, faith-based actors, and community peacebuilders as indispensable partners in the operationalization of the Covenant. Thank you.

Thank you for that comment, and I may just I would just note that it was suggested during the drafting in Geneva as well by certain delegations, particularly civil society organizations, to incorporate family as a subject of protection but also as rights holders as a fundamental unit of society, but that quickly, unfortunately, became contentious with different delegations having different perspectives. One perspective was the whole world is one family. Another perspective, you know, questioned the vulnerability of those without families. So it became quickly contentious, and if you would like to look at the debates, as I pointed out, not only is the draft accompanied with legal commentaries expressing, explaining the sources, but there's an additional commentary which explains the debates that took place. It's almost like a travaux préparatoires for any treaty process. It's negotiating history. It identifies which delegation said what on which specific word in which specific article. So there's an entire explanation of that, which is a complete record of the intensive discussions that took place over 4 years. It has been pointed out that a lot of work was done in Geneva. I may point out that on human rights matters, the Council and the Working Group is a technical body, and it is therefore important that for 4 years a rigorous exercise be conducted there on these issues, and I understand the comments made by Ambassador Akram, after having exhausted all that negotiation in Geneva, and when the draft is here, I understand the comment that we should not reopen the text here for any exhaustive negotiations. Ultimately, it of course depends on member states, but from my point of view, I understand where that comment comes from because having been involved in the negotiations for so many years, Ambassador Akram led the diplomatic efforts, and the political efforts, and I was obviously there along with Diane and my colleagues leading the legal negotiations. We are very familiar with what the end result is and how it, you know, the document as it ended and is here. So I'm sympathetic to that understanding and that argument that let's not reopen the text here in New York, but ultimately, It's not my role anymore. I'm not the chair of the expert group anymore. That mandate is over. I'm a member of this expert mechanism, and we haven't collectively taken a position on this aspect. All that I can say is that I'm sympathetic to that view. Ultimately, it would be on member states to decide what to do with the treaty. The 40th anniversary obviously presents a wonderful opportunity to take the Declaration into a legally binding instrument. Some of the other treaties like the rights of the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Racial Discrimination, Rights of the Child, Persons with Disabilities also began with declarations that were then converted into legally binding treaties. I do believe 40 years is a good enough time to do that. Diane, you would like to speak, I understand.

Thank you very much. If I may just briefly add to this point. Article 25 on harmonious interpretation was precisely placed in there so that the connectedness with all other international human rights treaties would be preserved, precisely for many of these questions and concerns. Concerns. On the family, especially in the role of the family, Article 10 of the Covenant on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights precisely vindicates already and provides for the duties of states, not just for protecting families or to create special measures of protection for families, but also for women, women who are mothers, also for children and youth. We're cognizant that there is already an existing existing body of law on this subject, and therefore what will be necessary is to ensure that the participation, contribution, and enjoyment of the right to development is indeed indivisible from— indivisible and interdependent and interrelated with what is existing international human rights law. I hope that addresses the concern.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from the floor? Seeing none, Madam Chair, I pass over the floor to you.

Thank you, Mijir. I would like to express our deep appreciation once again to you all for being here today and for sharing with us your questions and requests for clarification and for this stimulating discussion. This concludes an interactive chapter-by-chapter discussion of the draft— of— on the draft International Covenant on the Right to Development. We will resume this afternoon at 3:00 PM with the fourth and also the last thematic discussion on participation, inclusion, and the right to development of migrants in countries of Destination. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.