A/HRC/32/43 Rights, which had developed concepts closely linked to international solidarity, was also cited; (g) The need for more precise identification of “non-state actors” was once more underscored. It was pointed out that the term could loosely apply to business entities, non-governmental organizations or even terrorist organizations. Non-state actors were once again said to not be typical actors in international law, and therefore the way they were currently referred to in the proposed draft declaration was not in line with international law. In that regard, international law and the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that established the obligations of States when discussing duty bearers should be carefully taken into account. It would be preferable for the subject of human rights to be individuals, peoples and communities, rather than the current list contained in the text; (h) The general view was that, while the State could not be held responsible for acts or omissions of the private sector, it had the responsibility to enforce national laws and therefore the obligation to ensure that the private sector fulfilled its national and international obligations under labour, environmental and human rights law. The State was accountable when it failed to investigate, prevent or sanction the conduct of the private sector acting in its territory, in line with the existing jurisprudence of relevant human rights mechanisms; (i) Differing positions were voiced by participants in relation to who was considered a rights holder. As in the consultation with African States, some were of the view that States should also benefit from the right to international solidarity, while others argued against the inclusion of the right of States to international solidarity in the context of that draft. It was further highlighted that, while States might wish to negotiate a convention on the right of States to international solidarity, it would need to be negotiated in another type of forum. Others expressed the view that the text should consider individuals as the sole rights holders; (j) Finally, the importance of considering the issue of decentralization in the proposed draft declaration was again stressed, and it was argued that international solidarity should be recognized at all levels, most especially at the local level, where the right to participation was central to the practice of international solidarity. V. Asia-Pacific region 31. The fourth regional consultation was convened by the Independent Expert in Suva from 18 to 19 November 2015. There were 18 participants, including a State representative, members of the national human rights institution of Fiji, representatives of United Nations agencies, including OHCHR, and civil society, including academia and non-governmental organizations. 32. Welcoming remarks were delivered by the OHCHR acting Regional Representative for the Pacific region, who underscored that the principle of international solidarity was especially relevant to the Pacific region, where low-lying coastal States were facing increasing challenges due to climate change. She noted that most Pacific States were in great need of support in building climate resilience and mitigating the impact of natural disasters, in addition to working towards meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. She stressed that environmental degradation and the resulting negative impact on the realization of human rights demanded collective action. Mention was made of the high risk of migration in the region due to natural disasters, which could possibly lead to further human rights violations, as receiving countries might struggle to cope with a significant influx of migrants. She expressed her deep appreciation to the Independent Expert for choosing to 12