2nd Meeting, 14th Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development

Good afternoon. The second meeting of the 14th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development is called to order. I am pleased to begin discussions today under agenda item 5A, where we will address the findings of two draft thematic studies and welcome further input. Each discussion will be presented and moderated by the expert author in the study. We will start with a thematic study on peace, security, and the right to development. We are honored to have on the panel His Excellency Mr. Mario Enrique Zamora Cordero, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Dr. Anne Cantin, head of the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law at the International Committee of the Red Cross; Mrs. Emilia Chermak, chief of the Crisis Preparedness and Response Section of the OHCHR; Mr. Santiago Cantón, Secretary General of the International Commission of Juries, and Mr. Zakaria Benlachehah, representing International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations. A very warm welcome to you all and thank you for being here with us. I have the pleasure to start by presenting the draft thematic study and moderating the panel discussion.

Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the preamble of the Declaration on the Right to Development provides that peace international peace and security, I beg your pardon, are sine qua non for the achievement of the right to development. You have to have them in place first. And building on that, two of the ten articles of the Declaration, Articles 5 and 7, refer to specific obligations borne by states in the areas of peace and security. The draft thematic study on peace and security and the right to development reaffirms that peace and security are not just represented by an absence of armed conflict, but that peace and security are broader than that and require a human and people's centered focus. This draft is built around three state obligations stemming from the declaration. And it's been enriched over the last few months, thanks to the more than 60 contributions that we received from various different stakeholders and players, including states, civil society organizations, and academics. It's also been enriched by the dialogue with experts, such as the panelists we have with us this afternoon.

By way of introduction, I would like to share with you some of the conceptual and practical progress.

Or advances that have been made in this most recent version of the draft.

First, States have the responsibility to establish, maintain, and strengthen international peace and security.

This in line with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations Organization itself. This obligation emphasizes not just the prohibition of the threat or the use or threat of use of force, but also underscores the need to opt for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Practical measures have demonstrated how, within the multilateral system, regional and sub-regional mechanisms via preventive diplomacy and mediation have been able to play a preventive role and prevent potential situations of a breakdown of peace.

In the same preventive mindset, peace and security, if they are to be achieved, require full compliance by states with their obligations in the field of human rights and the rule of law.

States must guarantee and uphold civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as environmental rights.

And do so without discrimination of any kind whatsoever. They need to adopt all necessary positive measures in order to overcome and remedy historical and structural situations of discrimination which particularly affect the most vulnerable groups in society. Within the context of the rule of law and commensurate with the scope and definition of the right to development, states must encourage the active.

Free, and meaningful participation of persons and peoples in all their forms and guises, and states must refrain from any time of meddling in expressions of said participation as freely chosen by these peoples and groups.

Secondly, States must achieve general and complete disarmament under international effective oversight, and do so within the terms of the report of the Secretary General. Achieving this objective means that we need a shift in security doctrine mindset. We need to rebalance military expenditure and spend it rather on a peaceful and safe future, and as part of this, prepare a post-2030 disarmament agenda. Shifting funds away from expenditure on armaments will foster trust between states and will further bolster international, regional, and subregional.

Cooperation. Active transparency, which includes right to access to information on arms expenditure, would allow, where it followed, the.

Participation of peoples and persons in accountability efforts. Likewise, States must adopt all necessary measures to combat, prevent, and eradicate illicit arms trading, including illicit trading of small arms and light weapons. States must also combat, prevent, and eradicate.

The use of weapons of mass destruction, unnecessary suffering or indiscriminate effect.

They must also make progress in discussions on lethal autonomous weapons and how these are to be managed.

As well as AI-based systems. Some good practices can be found in regional treaties on nuclear-weapon-free zones.

As well as demining processes at the regional level, as a result of which land has been able to be used once again, giving a boost to agriculture and thus to the overall economy, and also allowing for the return of previously displaced persons who had to leave heavily mined areas. Thirdly, States must eliminate the mass and flagrant violations of human rights, in particular the human rights of those persons and peoples affected by a breakdown of peace and security. This situation includes, inter alia, the use of force contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, which must be ended. It also includes armed conflicts, racism, racial discrimination, and the refusal to recognize the core right of peoples to self-determination.

If we are to restore peace on a meaningful basis, resilience, social cohesion, and a culture of peace, the upholding the rights to truth, justice, reparation, institutional reform, and memory.

Need to be the cornerstones of the response to serious human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law. Those are the tools we must wield. In line with Sustainable Development Goal 16, in such scenarios, States must redouble their efforts to prevent impunity and to ensure investigation into the facts, the necessary prosecution.

And potential punishment of those responsible for the acts, the perpetrators, as well as guaranteeing access to justice and remedy and reparation for victims. We have good practices that we can borrow from, including peace agreements that end armed conflicts and begin the process of reconciliation and transitional justice, FYP, for example. specialized criminal courts, specialized jurisdictions, and truth commissions.

As part of compliance with these obligations, young people, women, and indigenous peoples must be reckoned as key constituents.

And change makers, agents of peace.

And so states must guarantee to these communities.

Their free, active, and meaningful participation in armed, in conflict resolution efforts and in peace and security efforts, including their participation at the highest levels of decision-making. Your Excellencies, delegates, it's a great pleasure to have with us today such a distinguished panel.

For the Mechanism, it's vital that we hear from you and we can thus incorporate your experience, your.

Input, so that we can further.

Fine-tune our understanding of the scope of the obligations of State Parties in ensuring the delivery of.

The right to development, as well as making sure that we have them and how we can better.

Factor in the inputs of communities and groups of peoples and persons, particularly the most vulnerable. Thanks to your input, we will, I'm sure, end up with a tool that will allow us to better identify and use tools that come further enhance the nexus between peace and security and the right to development. Thank you very much.

Our first speaker, His Excellency Zamora Cordero, to deliver remarks. Costa Rica abolished its army in 1948. How has this decision enabled the country to redirect its budget towards the economic, social, cultural, and political development of individuals and peoples? How has it shaped Costa Rica's foreign policy and its role as a mediator in situations of tension or conflict at the regional or global level?

Your Excellency, you have the floor. Thank you very much for being with us.

Chair, distinguished members of the Expert Mechanism, distinguished colleagues, fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen, a very good afternoon to one and to all. Costa Rica would like to thank the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development for its presentation of this draft of the thematic study on peace and security. And we'd like to take this opportunity to share with you our vision and make available to the experts for their consideration my country's experience and some suggestions we might have on how you can address this topic in all of its aspects. It's useful that the draft goes beyond a strictly military reading of peace and security, and that it does rightly identify the link with communities and the need for communities to participate on an equal footing, not just in peace and security efforts, but also in accountability and restoration of justice efforts. We agree with the finding of the study that a failure to respect and uphold rights makes for a ripe breeding ground for conflicts to erupt. We also welcome the fact that this study recognizes the huge role to be played in terms of prevention, which is mostly achieved by wielding the tool of international human rights and humanitarian law. Now, as far as Costa Rica is concerned, the right to development means, implicitly and explicitly, the right to sustainable development.

Sustainable is key.

And for sustainable development to occur, we need to uphold and respect all human rights, including the right to a safe, clean, and sustainable environment, which the International Court of Justice, or the ICJ, has recognized as essential for the full enjoyment of all other human rights. We welcome the fact that the study reviews the link between security, climate, and development, and we encourage the expert mechanism to delve further into this element, to wit, the contribution of a clean, safe, and sustainable and healthy environment to peace. A clean, safe, healthy, and sustainable environment could, for example, prevent conflicts over resources. Our own experience illustrates the interdependence and interlinkages that are described in the study.

Over the last seven decades plus, we have abolished our armed forces. This allowed us to allocate the resources that would have been spent on the armed forces to education, health, and.

And social welfare, and this in line with Article 7 of the Declaration, which encourages state parties to channel.

Resources liberated from defense expending to projects for holistic development.

This was a step taken to promote peace, and is a long-term project. A second example is our environmental policy. We have reversed deforestation, And we have bolstered and boosted forest coverage, and we also have an environmental payment service model in place, which recognizes the role of rural and indigenous communities in environmental conservation. As a fruit of this policy, we have an electricity grid that is almost entirely fueled by renewable fuels.

Which has allowed us to make great strides towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

We've done that with a human rights-based focus and approach, and with a particular focus on the most vulnerable groups in society. We also work hard to advocate for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and seas and marine resources. Chair, many of the current conflicts that we're seeing around the world.

Have at their heart a dispute over access to and control of resources, both natural and non-natural resources.

I'm speaking here of critical minerals, rare earths, water, but also of biodiversity and genetic resources. When these resources are exploited in an unsustainable manner, without fair and equitable distribution of their benefits, then we see further entrenchment of inequalities, we see entire communities displaced, and we see tensions fueled that can then spill over into violence. Local communities, indigenous peoples, women, and youth. are, as constituents, those who often bear the brunt and pay the highest price for this unequal and unjust approach. For that reason, we believe that focusing on peace and security.

Without factoring in the environmental element means that we are only taking a partial or.

Piecemeal approach to try and resolve this issue, and will be ignoring deep-rooted and structural causes that give rise to conflict and that break down peace, such as the role that the environment and resource conflict can play in causing conflict. We believe, therefore, that investing in a sustainable environment is one way of preventing conflict and war, and so we would invite the Expert Mechanism to incorporate this element in the final version of the study in such a way that the protection of the environment is recognised as a sine qua non for peace, and not just as an issue of secondary importance. Chair, Costa Rica's vision and experience, I think, confirm a principle, a principle that we have long.

Championed, and that is that development cannot be pursued if it is greedy and purely take, take, take.

Extractionist, nor if it ignores the needs for people, including at the intergenerational level.

We cannot have genuine development if it undermines economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, because these are the foundation of development. All human rights are universal and interdependent and indivisible, and we must make progress on all of them in lockstep.

Without the rule of law, without independent judges and courts, without guarantees of due process, the active, free and meaningful.

Participation, as provided for in the Declaration, will be a dead letter.

People need to have that security if they are to participate. The study continues to identify good practices.

We would encourage it to go further, including expanding its identification of good practices entailed in the participation.

Of women and young people. We also call upon the expert mechanism to ensure that the study maintains its holistic approach. including highlighting the link between sustainable development and the right of all to enjoy a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. We reiterate our willingness to collaborate constructively with the Expert Mechanism, and we look forward to doing so going forward. And in my capacity as the former Minister for Public Security in Costa Rica and currently Ambassador serving at our Permanent Mission here to the United Nations and other offices in Geneva, I'd like to once again thank you for the invitation to participate in this event. and wish you every success in striving to fulfill the goals for which this expert mechanism was set up. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Your Excellency, Ambassador Samora Cordero, for this Food for thought, it's very meaningful, much to chew on. I invite Dr. Kamtan.

Intervention, the global initiative to galvanize political commitment to international humanitarian law launched by the ICRC together with Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa seeks to ensure that EHL is not only better respected, but adapted for the future. What recommendation can State implement in relation to ongoing armed conflicts in order to end violation of international humanitarian law and to lay the groundwork for peacebuilding, post-conflict recovery, and transitional justice processes? What challenges persist? Madame, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by thanking the Expert Mechanism for the invitation and also congratulations on the draft research, which I read with a lot of interest. It's a pleasure to be here and also to answer your question, to talk a little bit about what we have done in parallel on the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law. And, you know, as I was going through the draft research, but also listening to your conclusions, I think there's quite a number of parallel conclusions that we can draw from also the process that we have led in the last couple of years. And so maybe I can start with that actually to talk a little bit about what the initiative is and how, you know, it also some of the conclusion links to the discussions in today and tomorrow. And in a way, it is interesting because the draft research also starts by quoting the ICRC on the number of armed conflicts that exist in the world today. And indeed, at the ICRC, we have counted today that there are at least 130 active armed conflicts in the world today, which is pretty much twice as many as 15 years ago. As our president of the ICRC said recently, I think we need to all realize that today we live in a decade of war. And living in a decade of war has consequences on the way people go through this decade and on access to the right of development, in a way. And so what this initiative has tried to do is to look at, of course, the situation of so many armed conflict, but also the increasing number of violations of the laws of war that are witnessed in ongoing armed conflict today. And the idea of this Global IHL Initiative is to place, as you know, in a very similar mindset, to place the responsibility back on states, as you were saying as well in your introduction. to place the responsibility back on states, on the fact that they are responsible to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and what that means concretely. And so today, this initiative has been joined by 127 states that have shown their support after the six founding states, as you mentioned, the six founding members of the initiative or Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa. And since then have been joined by many, many other states that are willing to try to make international humanitarian law a priority. So the way we have done this is we have identified a number of thematic work streams to work on that have been led by several states as well. And I wanted to zoom in on some of those work streams, especially because I think they provide some recommendations that are useful for the work done here. And so one of the, just to give you some examples, some of the work streams that we have worked with include the protection of civilian infrastructure, which Costa Rica has been co-leasing with three other states. but also the protection of hospitals as two of the most pressing humanitarian issues that we see in armed conflict today. We also look at good practices and how violations of the rules of war can be better prevented. We're also looking as an overarching theme, which is useful for this, again, for this discussion on the links between respect between the links between respect for international humanitarian law and peace. And so some of the, I will just give you three of the overarching conclusions that we have. The first one is that throughout the consultations that we led with states and a number of civil society organizations, the first conclusion that came out was really that in order to best prevent violations of IHL, you need a whole of society approach. It means that every layer of society needs to be involved in creating this culture of respect. And again, I think this echoes very much what you have said with that idea of creating really a culture within which respect for the law, respect for the normative framework, is ingrained within all layers of society. And in particular, within that conclusion, one aspect that came out very strongly and that is the need to prevent and counter dehumanization, and in particular to look at how narratives and behaviors that justify violations or that increasingly remove the human character of the enemies need to be combated as the first step, because this is a clear indicator that violations will potentially be committed. And so some of the recommendations that came out, for instance, for the armed forces to adopt guidelines on how the civilian populations of the enemy should be referenced to avoid dehumanizing narratives, dehumanizing behaviors, also to regulate the use of social media, for instance, to ensure that during war, the law is respected. Another conclusion that came out transversely, I would say, across the work, is that protection of civilians requires protecting the essential services on which the daily life of the civilian population depends. And of course, here you have a very immediate link with the right to development. And so we looked, with the support of Costa Rica in particular, together with Slovenia, Algeria, and Sierra Leone as the other coaches of that work stream on civilian infrastructure, we looked at how parties to armed conflict need to take into account in the military operations the cost of war, in a way, and the cost of destruction of civilian infrastructure. So that goes through understanding the notion of military objectives. And so we have many states that came and talked about how they understand the notion of civilian infrastructure, and also looking at certain narratives today where objectives or civilian objects, civilian infrastructure, that bring a political or economic gain are increasingly considered as military objectives and liable of attack, which is not what is provided in the definition of military objectives within IHL. And so those are some of the elements that were looked at. In addition, there were many other aspects considered by states, including very concrete recommendations, such as monitoring, mapping, sorry, mapping the location of civilian infrastructure, regularly updating the location of those infrastructure that deliver essential services to the civilian population, and creating potentially protected zones around those areas. So that zones that would be demilitarized and would never be attacked, even if they were used for military purposes, with the idea behind that they would always, because in a way, the consequences of attacking infrastructure that deliver essential services is so high for the civilian population that states could make those decisions to protect them during the military operations. And then one of the third transversal conclusions is on entering that new technologies uphold the principles of humanity. And I think that's also something that came out of your work on how, you mentioned autonomous weapons, we're looking at artificial intelligence as well, and how even if those provide ways of limiting consequences, they also bring a lot of risks at the same time. And so always making sure that we have a human-centered approach. And so if I take all those conclusions, in a way, the overarching frame, which is one dedicated work stream of the Global IHL Initiative, is respect for international humanitarian law and respect for all of this, respect for the protection of essential services, use of new technologies in respect for IHL, et cetera, that has an immediate impact on the capacity of parties to conflict and communities to go back to peace afterwards. And in a way, this is where as well we have seen a lot of links with what you have done in the sense of the more you destroy infrastructure during war, the more you prevent civilian populations from accessing essential services, including health care, for instance. And we had this work stream on the protection of hospitals. the more you will need to invest in order to create the conditions that are necessary for peace to come back. And so the work stream on IHL and peace looks in particular at, during war, what needs to be done. And so preventing violations, of course, and preventing destruction of those essential services, looking also at what can be done right after the end of hostilities, there's a section that also looks at disarmament in particular, that very much echoes as well what you were talking about before, but also removal of explosive remnants of war, etc., to ensure that populations can have a safe and dignified return to the areas where they come from. And so there's a whole There's a whole lot of recommendations that we have provided that were discussed together with more than 160 states that took part in those discussions together with civil society on how concretely we can ensure that the laws of war are respected during armed conflict in a way to ensure that when we come back, when we arrive at a moment where it is possible for the parties to the armed conflict to sit around the same table, the conditions are there for peace to return. And maybe in conclusion, the last part of your question was about the challenges that remain, and I will be very short on this, but I think today, clearly what is lacking is political commitment. And I think this is why the initiative that we have on IHL is about galvanizing the political commitment of states. Because we can talk about concrete and practical recommendations for a long time, but if there isn't a clear, unambiguous message given at the highest levels that respects for IHL, but more logical than that, respect for the normative international framework is a priority for the states. then, you know, all those practical recommendations can remain just words on paper. And so this is why, at the invitation of the King of Jordan, the initiative on international humanitarian law will culminate in a high-level conference in Jordan in December with heads of states and heads of government. gathering to really send a strong signal that the rules of war are being made a political priority today. And I think this really, again, goes back to ensuring that respect for the law is really something that political leaders care about and not just the lawyers and the experts in the room. So I'll stop at that. And congratulations again for the work.

I thank Dr. Kantam for her valuable perspective. We will turn now towards Ms. Chermak for her comments, drawing on the work of the OHCI Chair and its operational experience in crisis preparedness and response. How do crisis and insecurity undermine development and the enjoyment of the rights of individuals and peoples? In response to such situation, how can programs be designed and implemented to deliver sustainable human rights-based development solution for individuals and peoples affected? Madame, you have the floor.

Thank you so much. And first, I'll start by thanking you to inviting me to the panel, and also, as the other panelists, congratulating you for the report. Thanks for the question. It is undeniable that crisis will have an impact on the full enjoyment of human rights. Actually, crises are often a result of human rights violation. And if not to the minimum, they are an exacerbation of vulnerabilities that were observed before the crisis. Crisis lead to displacement, weakens institutions, disrupt essential services, and at the same time, divert resources to address immediate consequences of the crisis in year of addressing long-term services. It is widely recognized that sustainable development and the full realization of human rights cannot be achieved without deliberate investment in human rights, particularly during time of crisis. And this is why human rights need to be at the center of all the initiatives that are taken by the stakeholders in programming, in decision making, in pathways to durable solutions. This is particularly important in the current context, as we see that crises are rising, needs are augmenting, there are less resources to address the needs of the people in crisis, and there's a total erosion of the normative frameworks of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. So as I've already asserted that human rights has to be front and center to everything that is done in, during, and at the outset of the crisis response, there are also four steps that I'd like to emphasize that will multiply the effects of putting human rights and protection at the center of crisis response and early recovery and development. The first one is localization and operationalizing the localization agenda. It's a crucial element on the path to sustainable development, meaningful partnership with national, local, and civil society actors. Sustainable progress cannot be achieved without their inclusion and active participation at every stage of the process. It is with and through local actors that context-specific solutions can be identified. On the other hand, strengthened local capacities also enable communities and institutions to better absorb and respond to future shocks, reduce vulnerabilities, and prevent further deterioration when crisis occur. I'll share with you an example of our work in Somalia. where OHCHR worked on mapping the minorities and ethnic groups that had rendered invisible by the ongoing response to the crisis. The evidence-based approach informed a minimum humanitarian response and ensured that these communities were reached by humanitarian assistance. This assistance was increased by 60%. And as a result, representatives of minorities were also invited to participate in decision making coordination for to assist stakeholders to design sustainable pathways to achieving protection outcomes. The second aspect that should be reinforced is sharing of information. A key aspect of advancing sustainable development is information sharing and joint analysis. The comprehensive understanding of a crisis is the foundation upon which all subsequent interventions are built. Analysis is therefore fundamental. It informs priorities, guides decision making, and helps ensure that responses are both effective and forward-looking. It is also through the analysis that we have to identify the root causes of the crisis and the vulnerability, the causes for which the crisis has been allowed to develop and worsen in certain cases. I'll share the example of COVID. During the COVID crisis, We've seen an impetus, all organization work together to share as much information as possible on patterns of inequality and discrimination, on the impact of the crisis, of the disease, but also on the distribution of vaccines, for example. During the analysis, it was also factored in the vulnerabilities of health infrastructures, which which demonstrated what needed to be improved to improve access to health in the long term. And thanks to the information, all stakeholders managed to identify rapid response to the unfolding crisis, as well as early recovery and what needed to be done to improve health infrastructure in the long term. The third aspect is combining operational response with advocacy. We should be more systematic in transforming our analysis into joint advocacy, diplomacy, and accountability. Programming is key and must be part of an overall engagement with stakeholders. Coordinated messaging and joint advocacy are essential for engaging authorities and other stakeholders on stopping and mitigating the impact of the crisis and addressing the drivers of vulnerabilities. If we want to reach swiftly the recovery and development phase, we need to walk backwards into the future. And it's only by addressing root causes of the conflict that we can achieve sustainable and solid development gains. I'll show the example of DRC. Right now, in DRC, as you know, there is an ongoing crisis. And our team, our human rights team, is actively supporting the deployment of judiciary in remote areas to bring justice to the people. This is contributing to cohesion between communities and the authorities, and building the foundations of trust between stakeholders and solid rule of law institution, because human rights and sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without rule of law institutions that are solid. Moving to my fourth point on adopting a protection continuum approach, which is essential. Working and achieving sustainable development requires a holistic approach that links prevention, response, recovery, and development actors to addressing immediate risks while laying the foundations for the sustainable realization of human rights. Human rights provide an overarching framework that connects these different phases and helps ensure coherence across intervention. Such an approach also requires shared accountability. Protection is not only the responsibility of human rights and protection mandated organization, it's our shared responsibility. If you look at the protection policy of the Interagency Standing Committee on Protection, protection is the responsibility of all humanitarian organizations to be promoted. So in conclusion, it is undeniable that crisis will have an impact on human rights, and this is why it has to be center in the programming. But to complement this programming, we need to be very conscious of Sharing information, breaking the silo, working across the continuum, and consciously bringing and operationalizing the localization agenda. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Chair Mack, for her enlightening comments. I would like to invite now Mr. Canton to speak. Recognizing that peace is much more than the absence of armed conflict, and that development is much more than economic growth, what role do the rule of law, participation, justice, and equality play in consolidating peace and realizing human rights, including the right to development? What tools are available to a State within the framework of international cooperation to address the challenges facing peace and security, development, and human rights, the three pillars of the United Nations system? Santiago, tienes la palabra.

Thank you.

Chair, Juana María, for the invitation and for the study. I joined the other members of the panel to congratulate you on that. You're asking the right questions at the right time. 40 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development and stated in its preamble that international peace and security are essential elements of its realization. 40 years later, We are not commemorating a promise kept. So the question is not only whether peace and security are a condition for development, it is what kind of peace and what kind of security. Let me be direct about the world in which we meet, which I think is crucial to understand what's going on, particularly after the presentation by the ICRC. I have followed the international system for decades, from the regional systems to here, Geneva, and I have never seen it under so much pressure. We are witnessing its demolition. It is an attack on international law and on the international system. And let's be clear: these attacks are also attacks on the notion that power is limited to the law. Rules have always been broken. What is new is that they are now broken openly, without even the hypocrisy that we in the human rights community criticized for decades. It turns out that hypocrisy was doing more work than what we realized. The tribute that vice paid to virtue was at least an admission that virtue existed. Now we do not even have that. Some powerful states that helped build the international system after 1945 are now leaving the international institutions they created and supported for decades. Some governments are entirely dismantling their development agencies with a clear impact on human lives, while others are significantly reducing their assistance. And this is happening at the worst possible time. Humanity faces three existential threats. the risk of nuclear war, global warming, and artificial intelligence without regulations. International law is the one tool we have built to contain them, and it has worked, not perfectly, but it has helped keep nuclear weapons from being used for 80 years and brought almost every state into the Paris Agreement. on global warming. Yet, we are weakening international law at the very moment we need it most. For this right to development mechanism, the consequences are direct. Development is never secured once and for all. A war, a climate disaster, or a technological choke can erase in months what took a generation to build. A right to development without the functioning international legal order is a right without a guarantor. My answer to all these challenges is, however, quite simple. There is no lasting peace without justice, and there is no development without the rule of law. Independent judges, accountable institutions, and access to justice are a precondition for peace and development. Quite simple, right? But yet, over the last decade, critical actors of the international community have been making it almost impossible to achieve. The rule of law, participation, justice and equality are what peace and development are made of. Participation means little if no independent court protects it. Equality cannot be achieved if the excluded cannot reach a judge. That is why the independence of the judiciary and access to justice are the hinge that holds all the others together. Let me connect this to the three obligations the study identifies, building peace and inclusive societies. As was mentioned before, and it is in the study, the failures of the state to respect human rights create fertile ground for violent conflict. I would add that this failure almost always passes through the justice system first, before societies break into violence. We usually see judges threatened and human rights defenders harassed. This is why judicial independence should be read as a conflict prevention tool, as well as a development tool. Disarmament. What can we say after, again, the excellent ICRC presentation? I mean, we have 130 words. There has been 11 consecutive years in which the amount of arms in the world have increased. Third, obligations in situations of breach of peace. Experience in every region shows at great cost that peace without justice does not hold. In Sierra Leone, the 1999 Lomé Agreement granted a blanket amnesty, and within a year, the fighting had resumed. A lasting peace came only later. together with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. And I can go on and on and on with different examples. But the lesson is consistent. Justice is not an obstacle to peace. It's what makes peace durable. Let me now move to another issue that I believe the Chair will appreciate, which is A new approach that I believe, which is not new, but I believe we need to strengthen it. It started in Vienna 1993, declaring that all human rights are universal, indivisible, independent, and interrelated. It was already six years before, was already included in the declarations to the right to development. But this approach that I want to present, it is also fed by experiences in other countries and other regions. It is what is called the different constitutional blocks. It started with France having the first block, the constitutionality. It was followed in Colombia by the constitutional block. And it was followed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with a conventional block. And what's the idea behind this? The idea is that we cannot continue to treat democracy, rule of law, independent judiciary, and access to justice, equality, accountability, the minimum material conditions for a dignified life, completely isolated. In my view, we must add also to the right to a healthy enviro- we, we must add to this block the right to a healthy environment and the right to development as part of this block, they form, they form a single body of law held together by human dignity. Remove one, and the other ones cannot be realized in practice. This approach will help ensure that states can no longer separate what dignity holds together. A state will not be able to claim that it advanced development while it dismantled its courts, or that it respects rights while its people lack the basic conditions to exercise them. Charter declaration placed the human person at the center of development, which was also raised before. Forty years later, dignity should be the thread that holds peace, justice, and development together. This is what the rule of law means, and that is why it belongs at the heart of the right to development.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Santiago, for those important thoughts.

Now towards Mr. Belahcheha for his comments. Young people have been recognized as positive agents of peace, and the importance of their active, free, and meaningful participation in peace processes, as well as of the protection of civic space for young peacebuilders, is undeniable. Within the framework of the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda, how can young people contribute to the realization of the right to development? What measures can ensure that young people have real influence over decision on peace and development? Sir, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, it’s a very relevant question. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, first, I want to.

Thank the Secretariat for their invitation, also to congratulate the new experts on their mandate. This draft study recalls the interdependence between the three UN pillars: peace and security, human rights, and development.

Participation of youth must be envisaged throughout these three dimensions. The 1986 declaration provides a key starting point. Its first and second articles recognise the human as a participant in development and a beneficiary of its results. Persons are called on to participate actively and freely in development and must acquire equitably the benefits of that implementation. This right must include youth. Therefore, we often think wrongly that youth are only beneficiaries of public policy. Nevertheless, it's vital for youth to give new momentum in orienting that same policy. Youth must be perceived as genuine partners in the peace and development processes. They have a constructive, lasting vision when it comes to conflict settlement and development of societies. Youth are well aware of the long-term impacts of policies. They are the first to call for change in strategic spheres such as in sustainable development, and they face the realities of public policy, and they will inherit the repercussions thereof. Hence, their active participation helps bolster their national commitment in the long term. for universal development. They carry undeniable legitimacy in those processes. Giving them the floor is to open the voice for education, tolerance, solidarity, and intercultural dialogue. These pillars, they are pillars in peace building and in the global right to development.

Building on resolution 2419 and the.

2535 of the Security Council, the challenge is to translate recognition of youth as agents of peace into effective implementation of decisions. I’ll highlight three perspectives from that contribution: dialogue between communities, defining shared development priorities, and follow-up on public commitments. Those perspectives must be factored in both when it comes to conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. A specific practice example of that approach, that’s the co-management of the youth sector of Europe. The youth organisations take part jointly in defining priorities policies and budgets. That experience offers relevant institutional experience. Participation can be organised around a shared decision beyond mere consultations. To strengthen that influence, I would like to set out three priorities. First, guarantee safe civic space for youth, consistent with The guidance of resolution 2535, this provides for protecting youth from threats and reprisals, giving them, preserving their independence, free participation should allow the peaceful expression of disagreement. Secondly, institutionalise their participation at each stage of implementation and account for the impacts, report on impacts. Youth must be part of defining priorities and then in budgetary choices and in follow-up there too. Building on the Secretary General's note of 2023, it's crucial to inform youth of their contribution within policies. by giving them precise reasons for certain priorities being highlighted and other priorities being set aside. Thirdly, guarantee them accessible means of access. I recommend that States establish adapted specific financing in implementing their participation. This means sustainable support and measures to reduce material obstacles to their participation. Excellencies. In conclusion, participation of youth is insufficient if it is just in the form of consultations.

It can only be effective if there is on-going, tangible commitment of youth, if it is provided by the public policy of each state.

Therefore, the voice of youth can contribute to improving peace and global development around the world.

Thank you very much for that very important contribution, representing the voice and perspective of youth. Now I'm happy to open the floor.

All participants in the room for their comments and questions. Kindly remember to limit your intervention to three minutes, please. I recognize the representative from Venezuela. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Venezuela would like to thank all of the panelists for their contributions to this debate, and we welcome this opportunity to reflect on the close interlinkage between peace and security on the one hand and the right to development on the other. They are mutually reinforcing, and it's indispensable that we have both in place for the well-being of peoples. We agree that peace cannot be understood merely as the absence of armed conflict. Peace also means tackling structural inequalities, poverty, and the deep-rooted economic asymmetries.

Which limit development opportunities and perpetuate conditions of vulnerability and instability.

And in that understanding, we reaffirm that the right to development, if it is achieved, requires an international environment that's based on respect, sovereignty, equality between countries, peaceful resolution of disputes, and international cooperation, this in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

We also reiterate our concern in light of the fallout of the use of UCMs, or unilateral coercive measures.

Which limit the economic and productive development of States.

And limit their access to resources and technologies and hinder the implementation of essential public policies, essential.

That is for the well-being of the peoples. UCMs are incompatible with the forging of an international environment that is propitious for peace and security. Venezuela also believes it's vital that we take steps to bolster conflict prevention via diplomacy and dialogue and promotion.

Of the right to development. We believe that investment in education, infrastructure, and health.

As well as employment opportunities, also makes a contribution to stability and the forging of peaceful and inclusive societies.

Finally, Chair, we reiterate that peace and.

Development need to be seen as responsibilities that are to be mutually promoted and mutually reinforcing.

Guaranteeing the right to development will also ensure that we can guarantee an international order in which people can pursue.

Their own well-being and development in conditions of dignity and sovereignty and equality. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I now turn to the representative of Iraq. You have the floor.

Thank you very much indeed, Chair. We very much congratulate the Expert Mechanism for the most updated version of the thematic study on peace and security and the right to development. We take note of the efforts that clearly went into the preparation of this updated draft by the members of the Expert Mechanism and all that you do to prepare these studies, and this despite the liquidity crisis which is wracking the UN system.

We are of the view.

That the fact that this session is taking place coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the Declaration should spur us to reaffirm the validity of the preamble of that document, which underscores the importance of peace and security as preconditions if the right to development is to flourish. Paragraph one of the study points to the existence of some 130 armed conflicts around the world, with an economic cost that go of more than $9 billion in 2024. So it is high time that we choose to resolve disputes via peaceful means, to strengthen preventive diplomacy and mediation, and to refrain from resorting to force and the use of arms. We have taken careful note of the content of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the thematic study. which focus on the need to re-route military expenditure to development, particularly in developing countries. We commit to respecting the NPT. And we also endorse paragraph 14, which calls for the consolidation and further anchoring of development. Article 5 of the original Declaration on the Right to Development of 1986 calls upon states to put an end to flagrant and de facto violations of human rights, as well as to put an end to the use of force and foreign occupation. We call for an end to the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and the rights of Palestinian people, ensure that humanitarian aid can get through to the Palestinian people unhindered, in line with that Article 5. According to your study.

Violations of international law limit prospects for peace. Having conquered the terrorist groups of Daesh, we are of the

view that eradicating explosive remnants of war and demining are the perfect embodiment of the purposes of that study.

There's a link between taking such practical steps and the right to development. And this is something that can be applied to several different situations in countries around the world, not just Iraq. My conclusion is that, in our terms, the study needs to encompass practical recommendations that will strengthen international cooperation.

Particularly to the benefit of countries emerging from conflict and war, so that they are better placed to promote peace and development.

Thank you very much.

To the representative of Eritrea, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank all the panelists for their insights on this important topic, and we thank the expert mechanism for the study. I think maybe our intervention will be based more on our national experience, so allow me to deliver that as such. Eight decades has elapsed since the era of decolonization and the emergence of the majority of African states. In historical terms, this is not a long period, and we cannot but observe that it took centuries and protracted bloody conflicts for much of the developed world to reach what it is today. Given the deplorable conditions prevailing at independence, a number of African countries have made considerable progress in many areas, Eritrea included. Yet we are aware that whatever successes we have registered fall short of the expectations of our people. In line with our message earlier today, the realization of the right to development should be understood in its proper historical and international context. The pursuit of peace cannot be separated from the pursuit of equitable development, nor can lasting security be achieved without addressing the underlying causes of conflict. From Eritrea's perspective, our development plans are closely intertwined with the promotion and consolidation of peace and security across the wider Horn of Africa, the Nile basin, Red Sea, and the Gulf region. This regional perspective reflects the reality that the prospects for development are closely linked to the wider environment of peace and security. The right to development cannot be fully realized in isolation from the regional and international dynamics that shape the opportunities available to nations and peoples to pursue their development priorities. The Eritrean people embodied the ordeal of many nations subjected to a global order shaped in the aftermath of 1945, with the United Nations at its core. For decades, Eritreans endured immense sacrifices, first through a 50-year struggle for independence, and subsequently through decades of manufactured conflicts and unjust sanctions intended to disrupt their peace and stifle their progress. This experience underscores the importance of sovereignty, peace, and stability as essential conditions for nations to determine their own development paths. It also illustrates the broader challenge confronting countries whose efforts to advance development are constrained by external pressures and geopolitical interests. Eritrea's experience, however, is not unique. Across Africa, Latin America, Asia, and beyond, entire nations are subjected to punitive measures that strangle their economies, erode their sovereignty, and obstruct their development. Such practices raise fundamental questions about the international community's commitment to the right to development and the principles of international cooperation. Measures that undermine national development capacities and aggravate economic and social hardship risk further weakening the very conditions necessary for peace and security. It is unacceptable that after 80 years, we continue to rely on structured, structures designed at a time when a third of humanity was under the yoke of colonialism. An international order that does not adequately reflect contemporary realities and the sovereign equality of nations risks undermining international cooperation and the collective efforts that are required to advance the right to development and secure lasting peace and stability. I thank you.

Thank you. Now I recognize the representative from APG 23. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, APG 23 commends you, Ms. Ibáñez Rivas, and the panelists for their insightful update on the thematic study on peace, security, and the right to development. From our field presence alongside victims of conflict through Operazione Colomba, our nonviolent civil peace corps, we witness every day how war and armed conflict are the ultimate destroyers of human development and fundamental freedoms, demolishing critical infrastructure and disproportionately impoverishing vulnerable communities globally. The wars in Ukraine, Iran, and the genocide in Gaza, the prolonged conflicts in Sudan, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Sahel continue to shape the lives of millions. Economic inequality, climate change, forced displacement, and the resurgence of nationalist and unilateral politics further undermine global peace and create an atmosphere of chronic instability. States continue to invest trillions of dollars in military spending, diverting vital financial and human resources away from eradicating poverty and advancing the SDGs. To genuinely fulfill the right to development, we must replace military-centered security paradigms with a culture of active nonviolence and disarmament. States should uphold their international legal obligation regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-aggression, and effective international cooperation. True peace is not merely the absence of war, but the active presence of justice, nonviolence, and unconditional respect for human dignity. As anchored in Article 5 and 7 of the Declaration of the Right to Development, as well as the Pact for the Future and the Draft Covenant, sustainable development cannot exist without peace. Nor can peace be sustained without development. Moreover, the link between peace and development is also reiterated in the 2030 Agenda in SDG 16, where states committed themselves to foster peaceful, just, and inclusive societies. From the beginning, EPG23 has been committed to promoting integral development according to the vision of the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as international solidarity and the right to peace. We urge the Member States to translate these principles into concrete institutional mechanisms. In Italy, EPG23 launched years ago a campaign for the establishment of a Ministry of Peace. and is proposing such infrastructure for peace also to the UN member states. Such a dedicated ministry would redefine national security, shift focus from military defense toward human security, social equity, and nonviolent dispute resolution. Prioritize nonviolent conflict transformation, embed peace education, civilian nonviolent defense, and conflict prevention into core national policy. Convert resources, rechannel military budgets into sustainable socioeconomic development and climate resilience. Empower grassroot peace builders, include local communities, women and youth at the center of peace negotiation and development strategies. In conclusion, we call on the Expert Mechanism to explicitly recommend the establishment of ministries of peace as an essential structural innovation to guarantee the structural link between peace, security, and the right to development. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative from Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Asma Tanyong Daok. I'm a Malayu Muslim woman human rights defender from Pattani, coordinating the Pattani Working Group for Monitoring International Mechanism, and I am a board member of Manushya Foundation. Today, I speak on behalf of Forum Asia, Manushya Foundation, and the Pattani people in Thailand Deep South. Let me ask you a question: How can we shape our future when our voices are treated as a problem? Our communities have lived for decades with militarization and special security laws, including martial law and the emergency decree. Checkpoint, detention, and fear of torture enforces disappearance and killings affect daily life. Peaceful discussion of self-determination and celebration of Malayu identity must not be treated as security threats. We are not criminal. We are not terrorists. We are human beings. We want to live freely with our language, faith, and heritage. and decide our development priorities. The Declaration on the Right to Development recognizes people's self-determination. Peace requires space to exercise that right without fear. We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. Their future must be theirs to decide. Our history are different, but dignity, freedom, and people's participation must guide peace and development everywhere. The development agenda must be shaped by communities. We invite the expert mechanism to recommend that member states: First, end emergency rule and militarized restriction on civic freedoms, and cease criminalizing peaceful expression of self-determination and cultural identity. Second, Establish civilian-led, inclusive peace processes in which community, especially women and youth, have real decision-making power. Third, ensure accessible information in communities' own languages and meaningful participation before development projects are approved. Peace is more than the absence of fighting. It means living without fear, with justice, and the power to shape our future. Without self-determination, the right to development and peace cannot be fully realized. Thank you.

Thank you. I recognize the representative from Azerbaijan. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 40 years ago, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development, affirming that every person and all peoples are entitled to participate in and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development. While progress has been made in its realization, conflicts continue to have severe consequences for societies and economies, undermining development through displacement, humanitarian crises, and the loss of development gains and prospects. As set out in the Declaration on the Right to Development, international peace and security are essential elements for the realization of this right. In this regard, following the liberation of its territories, Azerbaijan undertook forward-looking steps aimed at advancing a comprehensive peace agenda with Armenia, highlighted by the Washington Joint Declaration of 2025, the initialing of draft peace agreement, and establishing regional connectivity through the TRIP framework. However, consequences of conflicts persist long after they end. Much remains to be done to recover, rebuild, and reconcile. Azerbaijan's experience of war and occupation illustrate the far-reaching humanitarian, social, and economic consequences of conflict and demonstrates that progress toward peace must be accompanied by sustained efforts to address its enduring effects. Having hosted one of the world's largest per capita population of internally displaced persons, Azerbaijan has gained extensive experience in accommodating and assisting IDPs and restoring their rights. Azerbaijan has also made significant progress in post-conflict recovery and reconstruction, allocating over 16 billion to rebuilding cities, towns, and villages destroyed during the conflict. With the implementation of the Great Return Program, nearly 100,000 people now live, study, and work in the liberated territories. However, these efforts, particularly those also aimed at ensuring the safe and dignified return of IDPs, are seriously hampered by another lingering consequence of conflict, the landmine contamination. An estimated 1.5 million landmines contaminate more than 13% of Azerbaijan's territory. Since 2020, mine incidents have killed or injured more than 400 Azerbaijani citizens. citizens, including women and children. Strengthening controls to prevent illicit arms trafficking is also essential to maintaining international peace and security. For nearly three decades, parts of Azerbaijan’s territory remained under occupation and outside effective control of its authorities, creating conditions for illicit activities, including arms trafficking. With the restoration of its sovereignty, Azerbaijan strengthened border controls in these areas, reducing risks of such trafficking. Finally, lasting peace must also be grounded in justice and accountability. Experience demonstrates that atrocities, if left unpunished or unacknowledged, can impede peace, obstruct reconciliation, and create conditions conducive to renewed conflict. Azerbaijan has taken decisive steps to investigate and prosecute numerous atrocities crimes committed during the conflict and to end the impunity for the grave human rights violations. In conclusion, development must remain central to our collective efforts, particularly in post-conflict settings. Its realization requires effective national policies and enabling international environment based on solidarity, trans- and multilateralism. Azerbaijan continues to support dialogue and cooperation aimed at strengthening the international framework for the realization of the right to development for all. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative from Cuba. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Cuba would like to thank the Expert Mechanism for the presentation of the updated report, and we also thank all of the panellists for what they shared with us this afternoon. The undeniable link between peace and security and development was duly recognized in the Declaration on the Right to Development of 1986. Peace cannot be built upon the back of poverty, exclusion, and underdevelopment perpetuated currently by the unfair existing international economic order.

Development will also not flourish in the midst of armed conflict, threats.

Of use of force, or economic and political coercion. Although these realities have been duly recognized, or the truth of what I've said has been duly recognized, concrete actions are out of lockstep with commitments and rhetoric.

The paradox is undeniable.

Humanity spends 16 times more on destroying itself than it does on developing itself. In 2025, global military expenditure reached $2.8 trillion, the highest ever figure recorded, representing 2.5 of global GDP, the highest level of such expenditure since 2009. At the same time, financing for development registered this year its historic lows, with barely 774.3 million dollars set aside for fulfillment of ODA commitments, official development assistance commitments. This trajectory is not sustainable.

Any strategy that prioritizes expenditure on armaments over development can hope to preserve and conserve humanity. Chair, today in Cuba, we are seeing a silent genocide occur as a result of the ramping up of the multidimensional war imposed by the United States of America on my country. Brutal energy cutting off for more than 10 months now has led to deaths, as has been reflected.

In the increase in infant mortality from.

4.6 to 9.6 for every thousand live births, so almost a doubling as a result of this American action.

We've seen an increase in the number of child deaths from cancer as well. Between 2025 and 2026 alone, the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America on Cuba caused losses valued at The cumulative damage and losses as a result of this policy have risen above $3 trillion over time. The blockade should not exist, and were it not to exist, Cuba's GDP at current prices in 2025 would have reached a growth rate of 10.8%, higher than the estimated.

Value of the GDP rise for this year on average.

Cuba has done its utmost to achieve development, and what would we have achieved?

Absent this illegal policy of the United States under which we’ve grown and under which we labor.

This policy is waged under the bizarre claim that Cuba is an extraordinary threat to international peace and security, and the United States uses this to threaten Cuba, thumbing its nose at international law and the Charter of the United Nations. It’s a military adventurism against Cuba. And were this to be fully unleashed, it would lead to actual.

Bloodshed, it would destabilize our region wholesale, and it would have devastating and uncalculable consequences way beyond our borders. So we hope that we will not continue on the current trajectory. It's entirely unacceptable. Cuba has the right to live, to flourish, and to pursue development in peace.

Cuba is not a threat.

The blockade, on the other hand, is a direct threat. It is a shared and joint responsibility that we put limitations on those who threaten and harm entire peoples and undermine the sovereign prerogatives of states.

The global.

South needs to fight for that and to collectively come together to protect itself from any of those who wish.

Via external meddling and interference and destabilization efforts, prevent the rights of peoples.

To pursue development, which is what we're seeing happening here.

Thank you very much indeed, Chair.

Thank you very much. As the Chair, I recognize the representative from Iran.

You have the floor.

Thank you, madam Chair. We thank all the panelists for their important study on peace, security, and right to development. We particularly welcome this study's reference to Article 5 of the Declaration of Right to Development, which explicitly addresses aggression, foreign interference, and threat to national sovereignty, as well as its emphasis on the consequences of armed conflict and the importance of accountability. In this regard, we would like to suggest three areas for further consideration. First, greater attention should be given to the long-term developmental consequences of attacks on civilian infrastructure, particularly their impact on human capital, national development capacities, and future generation. Second, the study could further examine how unilateral coercive measures obstruct post-conflict recovery and reconciliation prolonging the developmental consequences of armed conflicts. Third, we encourage the expert mechanism to address the responsibility of states for the developmental consequences of internationally wrongful acts, including unlawful military aggression. We believe that incorporating this dimension will strengthen the study and reinforce the understanding that peace and security are essential conditions for the effective realization of the right to development. I thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative of the State of Palestine.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. Palestine thanks the expert mechanism and the panelists for its study and expresses its appreciation to the states and civil society organizations that addressed the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory during the general statements and at this item, and stood in solidarity with Palestine and its people and their struggle for freedom, justice, and self-determination. The study rightly underscores that peace, security, and respect for human rights are indispensable to development, particularly in the face of colonialism, apartheid, foreign occupation, and the denial of self-determination. Nowhere are these violations more painfully manifested than the occupied Palestinian territory, where Israel's illegal occupation, its Zionist settler colonial enterprise, its genocidal policies, alongside its instruments of domination, This position and apartheid have systematically denied my people their fundamental rights. Madam Chair, it is hard to speak of development while my people are subjected to genocide, apartheid, forcible displacement, and the destruction of the very foundations of a human life. How can we speak of sustainable development when entire neighborhoods lie in ruins, hospitals and universities are destroyed, and generations of Palestinian children are deprived of their education, childhood, and too often, their lives? As UNCTAD, and here I want to encourage delegations to look at UNCTAD reports, which was documented and referenced by the International Court of Justice at its advisory opinion on Palestine 2024. As UNCTAD have documented, decades of Israeli occupation have subjected the Palestinian economy to systematic de-development. In the first 15 months of the ongoing genocide itself, 22 years of economic progress were erased. While Gaza alone is estimated to have lost more than 69 years of human development. Meanwhile, accelerating annexation, illegal settlement expansion, settler terrorism, and forced displacement throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, continue to destroy Palestinian livelihoods and communities. Palestine's experience exposes a fundamental contradiction in the international development system. While States commit to sustainable development, poverty eradication, and leaving no one behind, the Palestinian people are being deliberately deprived of the means to develop. This is not merely a Palestinian concern, but a challenge to the universality of the right to development. We particularly welcome the study’s emphasis on disarmament, accountability, and compliance with international law. Yet, the continued transfer of weapons to the occupying power fuels further atrocities and destruction, demonstrating how militarization and international complicity undermines the very conditions necessary for peace and development. Humanitarian assistance cannot become a substitute for justice, nor reconstruction for freedom. There can be no meaningful development under genocide, colonialism, and illegal occupation. Madam Chair, the international community does not lack legal obligations. authoritative judicial findings, or evidence of the crimes being committed. What remains lacking is the political will to translate these obligations into concrete action. All states must fulfill their obligations not to recognize as lawful, nor aid or assist in maintaining the situation arising from Israel's illegal and unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, and to cooperate to bring it to an end. As the study rightly emphasizes, The realization of the right to development requires states to uphold peace and security, pursue disarmament, and eliminate flagrant violations of international law. For the Palestinian people, these obligations must translate into concrete international action and to end Israel’s illegal occupation, including a comprehensive arms embargo, ending military and security cooperation sustaining the occupation, prohibiting economic activities that contribute to the illegal settlement enterprise, and adopting effective political, diplomatic, and economic measures to ensure compliance with international law and accountability. This is a question not only of a legal responsibility, but of a political will. Thank you.

Thank you. I recognize the representative from International Service for Human Rights. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Tender Titanrat, a queer agency activist, co-founder of Mok Lom Lim Nam, a young people lead democracy group in Thailand. And I am a protection associate at Manusiya Foundation, speaking on behalf of the International Service for Human Rights and Manusiya Foundation. I was among the youth leader during Thailand's 2020 pro-democracy protest. I have faced less majestic persecution myself. We manifested to exercise our right to development, to have a say in decisions affecting our lives and future. For us, development means education, decent work, a healthy environment, and freedom to be ourselves. Persecution for peaceful speech total all of this. Justice cannot be built by silencing the generation that must live with today's decisions. We also welcome Thailand's step toward anti-SLAPP law, but young people, indigenous communities, and human rights defenders who face SLAPP cases must have the right, the real say in the anti-SLAPP reform. Protections must go beyond defamation to all laws misused to silence people asking for a better future and sustainable development. We therefore ask the Experts Mechanism to recommend that Member States: First, protect peaceful expression and assembly. Second, Make strong anti-SLAPP laws with the people who face those losses. Cover civil and criminal cases, including cases filed by prosecutors, whatever laws it used to silence people. Third, find protection for human rights defenders, including children, young people, indigenous people, and LGBTIQ+ people. our voices, mobilizing and solidarity have ensured development that respects our human rights. Listen to us, protect our right to participate. Let young people help create a peaceful and sustainable future. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker in the list is the representative from Humanity First. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellencies, I speak today as International Liaison Officer of Humanity First UK at the 14th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. As we mark 40 years of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, But we also, from the perspective of an organization working directly with the communities affected by conflict, displacement, poverty, and disaster. Our experience has taught us an important lesson. Peace, security, and development are not separate agendas. They are inseparable. Where there is conflict, development is destroyed. Where there is extreme poverty and exclusion, instability can deepen. And where the people are denied access to food, water, health care, education, and livelihood, their ability to exercise their rights and participate meaningfully in development is severely constrained. The right to development, therefore, requires more than economic growth. It requires an environment in which people can live safely, participate in decisions that affect their lives, and benefit fairly from the resources and opportunities of their society. Humanity First sees this connection every day. In Gaza, our team has continued to provide humanitarian assistance despite operating in an active conflict environment. Since October 2023, Humanity First UK has served more than 50,000 people with water, distributed hygiene kits to more than 30,000 families, provided 300 UN specifications tents, and supported temporary learning for more than 2,000 children. Humanity First demonstrates that peace and development are not merely ideals; they can be achieved through practical actions. Through its Water for Life program, communities in Africa, Pakistan, and several other countries have benefited from access to clean drinking water. Following the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, Humanity First has provided emergency medical assistance, food, and essential supplies to affected families. Through its Gift of Sight program, people have received eye care and cataract surgery, while educational and vocational training initiatives help young people build a a more secure future. In Zimbabwe, Humanity First Switzerland has also supported vulnerable families through food distributions. These examples demonstrate that humanitarian assistance is not simply about meeting immediate needs. It is about restoring dignity, creating opportunities, strengthening communities, and helping people build a future in which they can live safely and peacefully. In Nepal, recent flood disaster, humanity first supplied food and tents to the affected people. These numbers are not simply humanitarian outputs. They represent an attempt to preserve the foundations upon which development depends. A child continuing to learn during conflict is an investment in the future. A family receiving clean water is an investment in health and dignity. A community retaining access to essential services is an investment in resilience. And in July this year alone, our Gaza team completed 300 64 water trucking trips, delivering more than 1.4 million liters of clean water and reaching an estimate 242,600 people. So, it illustrates another principle. Security is not only about protecting borders. Humanity security means protecting people. In Syria, following years of conflict and 2023 earthquake, our work has moved from emergency relief towards recovery. Humanity First has rehabilitated 125 homes for 850 beneficiaries, supported 1,487 people with food, provided $75,000 worth of medical supplies, and it is developing six classrooms for the school expected to serve 1,100 students annually. The transition from relief to recovery is fundamental to the right to development. We must not allow humanitarian crises to become permanent condition of dependency. International cooperation should help communities rebuild their homes. restore their schools, strengthen health care, secure clean water, develop livelihoods, regain the ability to determine their own future. This is why the international community must adopt a more integrated approach to peace and development. Firstly, peace building must include investment in basic services and human development. Second, development program must prioritize conflict affected and marginalized communities rather than leaving them behind. Thirdly, local communities must be a partner, not merely beneficiaries. Sustainable peace cannot be imposed from outside. It must be built with the people, with their life, with its consequences. And the fourth, humanitarian assistance must be connected wherever possible to recovery, resilience, and long-term development. Humanity First operates in 67 countries, and our experience across these very different contexts reinforce one message: people do not want to live permanently on humanitarian assistance. They want the opportunity to rebuild, to work, to educate their children, and participate and determine their own future. This is the essence of right to development. I thank you.

Thank you. I recognize the representative from Arab Council supporting fair trial and human rights. You have the floor.

Thank you.

I am Abdel Ghawad Ahmed.

I am president of the Arab Council of Human Rights, and I am a lawyer. I am a member in the board of Alliance Global for Stop Crime and I will speak by Arabic.

As a lawyer, ladies and gentlemen, I consider myself in front of something like a tribunal because you're jurists, and I'd like to thank the working group for organizing this session and for inviting us as an NGO, because NGOs are critical partners to states in human rights. So, I would like to thank the organizers and would like to say a few things about this study and the whole question of security, peace, and the right to development, as we celebrate 40 years since the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development. The question begs: What are we looking at today? There's an escalation in the violations of the right to development. We're also facing a series of challenges that supersede national capabilities of states, challenges that go beyond what local communities can tolerate. These challenges are also cross-border. And we've heard from the ICRC talking about 330 conflicts around the world, or 130. And I would like to ask the expert that conducted part of the study, There are three main challenges and three main phenomena that influence directly peace, security, and the right to development. The first of these challenges is the following. It's an old story, but a new one as well. It's the use and exploitation of mercenaries in the various violations of the right of peoples to development. So this phenomenon of using mercenaries in various forms, because we have seen an example in the Sudan via the Rapid Support Forces, this militia that has violated the rights of the Sudanese people in exercising the right to development. We have an example in Yemen via the Houthi militia, which is a group of mercenaries that have violated the right of the Yemeni people to exercise its right to development and to enjoy their capabilities. We have other examples in Chad and other countries, the list goes on. And we witness the phenomenon of deprivation of life by building dams in vital rivers. This is an infringement upon the right to development. There's also a phenomenon which is the use of military power, as we see in the Palestinian example. So I listed about three examples where we see that there is a direct impact on the right to development. And I would like to hear from you some of your recommendations with regard to these challenges, these phenomena, these trends that require collective intelligence at the national community level, and we need these themes to be high on the UN agenda and the agenda of your working group in this and future sessions, because these conditions and challenges could benefit from further studies, because there is a clear link between security, peace, and the right to development on the one hand, and the violations that we are witnessing in various forms, as I've just enumerated, And I would like to share with you a recommendation. Civil society, NGOs, and other stakeholders can play a critical role in supporting regional or international cooperation, because civil society has field experience, and I think we all benefit from such recommendations, because 40 years on, Since the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, it has become clear that there is an ever-increasing number of conflicts and wars and various violations and harmful phenomena that impact negatively the right to development. I'll stop here. I'd like to thank the working group, and I thank the organizers for allowing an NGO to come here. The Arab Council is a consultative status NGO, and thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to be here with you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've got a couple more interventions.

We'll try to fit them in if we've got time. So I'd like to give the floor once more back to our distinguished panellists so that they can share with us some of their thoughts. I would ask you to limit yourselves to maximum four minutes, starting with Ambassador Mora Cordero. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Red Cross report indicates the existence of more than 130 confluence right now around the world. The abolition of the army in Costa Rica did not stem from any philosophical political process to reach that political decision. It rather, it stemmed from a recognition of human suffering. the crisis and shock generated by the 1948 civil war in my country. That was our central motivation, why Costa Rica eliminated its armed forces, and instead it established police forces under civil control. The second question is why In over 70 years, Costa Rica still lives through conflict situations, and it hasn't, despite those, it hasn't resorted to restoring armed forces. That's because under our public constitutionality, there was the idea to create a Ministry for Peace, establishing a connection between the internal rule of law and the rule of law at international level. And people who form part of a democratic society, they renounce force and they delegate the upholding of the rule of law to the state. That's something that Costa Rica did in the face of international law, so that in the context of the international legal institutions, that that is how we exercise the defence of our nation. Our historic experience has, on two occasions, prompted us to convene and ask for international cooperation at critical times that we've gone through throughout our history. And it's the firm belief in international law which prompted us to not reinstate the armed forces in Costa Rica. And the use of those resources for over 70 years, turning those resources towards education, social security, environmental protection, that is what today characterises Costa Rica. I’d like to humbly share that experience in the forum in view of the important statements that you have made. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. I give the floor now to Dr. Cantón. You have the floor.

Thank you.

I'll be pretty short. I wanted to echo what was said by my co-panelist from the International Commission of Jurists. I think what is happening today is indeed that the international legal system is under threat. And I think there can be no peace, there can be no right to development without better respect for international law. And I think what we need to do, and this is what we've tried to do with this global initiative when it comes to international humanitarian law, is to try and work on two fronts in parallel, both to ensure that states work within their domestic legal systems and to ensure that within their domestic legal systems, all the institutions, the frameworks, the laws, and policies are in place to ensure that the law is at the center, respect for the law is at the center, and that even in times of crisis, those institutions, laws, et cetera, are resilient enough to resist the pressure that a crisis brings. But at the same time, it is also about working with every, I mean, all states and entering that states not only work and look at what's happening domestically, but also integrate respect for the law in how they manage their foreign relations with others. And that, you know, one of the asks that we have is that, you know, to give full effect to the obligation to ensure respect for the law and that state's condition, support to other states or other parties to armed conflict to respect for IHL, and I think that also, that should also go along with greater respect for international law.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to Dr. Sermak. You have the floor.

Yes, Jeff Berson. I'll be brief. I think all key points have been raised, and in the interest of time, I just want to reiterate the call for more solidarity and collaboration across the humanitarian, development, and peace nexus. It's about time that we operationalize those agendas, including localization. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to Santiago Cantón, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. I will also be very brief, mainly because I don't think I have an answer. But I do know that the answer is not what we have been doing for the last decades. We are living extraordinary times and we need extraordinary solutions. And to be doing the same thing we've been doing for the last decades, i don't think is going to provide the extraordinary solutions we need. I don't have the answer, I don't know what are those solutions, but clearly it's not what we are doing. And we need to find a different way to address. If you want, you can read the statement the ICJ put out at the end of the last council. But basically it says that the council is still working. Working relatively well, similar to the Office of the High Commissioner, with cuts and problems, but still working. They approve mandates. We have all side events, civil society participates. We are all doing that, and we are ignoring the elephant in the room. International law has been attacked, and the international system has been attacked, and we are still doing the same thing. I do believe we need to find a different solution, but I'm sorry, I don't have the answer. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Santiago.

I give the floor now to Zakaria for concluding remarks.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In September 2027, it will be the fourth anniversary of the International UN Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development. Its outcome document merits renewed attention in our efforts to realise the right to development. while military spending grows, considerable resources given to the military could instead be turned to health and education and meet other urgent social needs. This anniversary offers an opportunity to better integrate disarmament into our advocacy in favour of the right to development. For youth, this approach is of carries ambition for the future. Let us ensure that the money liberated for disarmament can help to build a peaceful future and offer peaceful prospects for all. We want to work with all interested stakeholders to advance that process.

Thank you very much, Zakaria. I would like to reiterate my own profound gratitude to the panellists and experts, to all of you, for all your contributions that truly have achieved the goal of this session, which was to enrich this draft thematic study on peace, security, and the right to development. I think this meeting confirms that we're on the right path towards identifying that maintaining and strengthening peace not only is in line with UN obligations, but that it's something fundamental in the definition of peace, but it also means recalling what exactly, what states, what obligations states have in the field of human rights and what states have to do to guarantee that rule of law based on justice, participation, separation of powers. It's very important, as you have, as you've said in your statement, is access to information, the obligation of the state to guarantee active transparency, which is ultimately what will allow for accountability for persons and peoples. As you can see, this study seeks to establish this relationship between international human rights law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. The idea is to emphasise those obligations of co-operation and solidarity between States, this collective guarantee of what we talk about in international human rights law, which is the need to respect international humanitarian law. With respect to obligations on disarmament, here we have, as a good best practice, the case of Costa Rica. Ambassador Zamora was kind enough to share with us the impact, the tangible impact, of abolishing the army and how money has been invested rather in education, social security, healthcare. So, not only through your participation, you know, we received these specific references for Costa Rica, it was also the importance highlighted of having access to information on disarmament or access to and how to face the new challenges of AI, of autonomous weapons, with a view for us reaching a binding instrument in the field underlining the principles of humanity, the guiding principle of international humanitarian law. And then in the third part of this thematic study, we confirm that in processes of armed conflict, what's fundamental is to urge the parties to abide by their human rights obligations, IHL obligations, because it’s specifically that compliance with norms in those contexts of barbarism, of conflict, that’s the only way to allow in future to reach situations of peace, peace agreements, justice, transitional justice, and how the interventions have also highlighted the importance of having justice as a part of those peace post-conflict peacebuilding. As a cross-cutting element, as you know, we have included the role as agents of peace of youth, of women, indigenous and tribal peoples. We have also heard about the importance of guaranteeing their participation and their empowerment. These are all tasks to reflect those themes in the thematic study: the intergenerational approach to development, which Zakaria mentioned when it comes to the role of youth as agents of peace; and the environmental approach, which Ambassador Samora also mentioned, which is already present in the study but on which there is a need to make progress in its scope and content. Just building on this idea that we face a right to development with broad possibilities, opportunities, we know it’s a right with two dimensions, individual and collective, which represent the intersection of civil and political rights, economic, cultural, and environmental rights, which was based on the participation of people and communities directly in defining what development they want and which certainly requires the cooperation from all states, that requires solidarity towards its realization. So those elements, I'm sure, will be framed in the study. So again, I thank you so very much for your participation. I thank the experts who've been with us. I'm very pleased with the outcome and I'm already seeing how this study is taking shape that I hope to be able to share with you in terms of the results at the end of next year. Thank you very much. That brings to an end this interactive dialogue on peace, security and the right to development. I thank you all for your participation.

Tomorrow at 10 AM with agenda item 5B, focused thematic discussion. Right now, the expert mechanism will stay in the room for a closed meeting. We thank you all for having joined and kindly ask attendants who are not part of the closed meeting to leave the room. We thank you for your understanding. The meeting is adjourned. Muchas gracias.

Thanks very much.