A/HRC/27/63 prevention of armed conflicts, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and the contribution of the Human Rights Council to the prevention of violations of human rights and its response to human rights emergencies. In the Chair-Rapporteur’s view, the objective of the new text was not only to capture the link between the right to life and peace, but also to elaborate on the right to life in relation to human rights and development. He concluded by underlining the basic principles for conducting the session of the working group, i.e. transparency, inclusiveness, consensus, objectivity and realism, and he restated his commitment to working towards the adoption of the future declaration by consensus. 17. At its lst meeting, on 30 June 2014, the working group adopted, without comment, its agenda, as contained in document A/HRC/WG.13/2/1, and the programme of work. 18. Upon the proposal of the Chair-Rapporteur, the working group agreed to hold a general debate, to be followed by the first and second readings of the new text prepared by the Chair-Rapporteur, and to conclude with the adoption of the report on the session. III. General comments 19. At the 1st meeting, on 30 June 2014, following the adoption of the agenda, the floor was opened for general comments. Although views concerning the concept of the right to peace still diverged, all participating delegations engaged constructively in the discussion. The general debate was concluded at the end of the 1st meeting. 20. Numerous delegations congratulated the Chair-Rapporteur on his re-election and commended him for his leadership on the issue and for his cooperative, transparent and objective approach. Delegations also stated their appreciation of his efforts to prepare a new text, carefully reflecting the various positions expressed at the first session of the working group and during the various intersessional consultations. Most delegations expressed the hope that the principle of consensus would be maintained during the forthcoming negotiations. One delegation reconsidered its previous position and supported the overall new approach, stating its readiness to enter into negotiations on that basis. 21. A number of delegations expressed their full support for the mandate and the ongoing process of preparing a draft declaration and considered that the right to peace was a fundamental precondition for economic and social progress and the enjoyment of all human rights. In their view, the notion of the right to peace existed as a collective right in the normative legal framework of international law and already enjoyed broad support in the international community. They believed that the right to peace in itself was a right and was necessary for the achievement of individual and collective rights in every nation. One delegation recalled that the right to enjoy peace was also firmly stipulated in the Human Rights Declaration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Some delegations thought that the new draft should not be any less than what was already contained in previous texts. 22. Some delegations expressed cautious appreciation of the direction in which the drafting was heading on the basis of broad consultations. Some delegations noted, however, that a shared understanding had not yet been established between States on the issue and they disagreed with the idea of peace as a prerequisite to human rights. Others maintained that international law did not currently provide a right to peace and they expressed certain reservations concerning the need for a new declaration. It was difficult to draw substantive obligations from the current vague definition of a right to peace, which they could recognize neither as an individual nor as a collective right. Some delegations therefore could not support the expression of the right to peace in the title and considered that it needed to be aligned with the text’s new approach. They were nevertheless willing to engage in discussion on the linkages between peace and human rights and were supportive 6