A/HRC/32/43 shape international relations and cooperation; (iii) posing international solidarity as a value, devoid of any legal content, wherein, although there was no legal duty on the part of various actors to take collective action, there was a moral obligation to do so, preconditioned on the premise that, as a moral rule of action, States should consider the impact of their action and non-action, and not only their own self-interest; and (iv) establishing international solidarity as a right, with clear reference to the extraterritorial obligations of States; (b) In order to respond to the often expressed scepticism, it was suggested that existing and agreed upon international human rights language should be used in the proposed draft declaration; (c) A greater emphasis on the extraterritorial obligations of States would benefit the proposed draft declaration and strengthen its added value; (d) A proposal was put forward to identify States as being not only duty bearers but also rights holders. While attending States were generally in support of that idea, some scepticism was expressed from the perspective of international human rights law; (e) A suggestion was made to slightly modify the title of the proposed draft declaration in order to move towards a consensus, by removing the reference to “peoples” and simply making a reference under the appropriate article describing rights holders; (f) Another proposal was made to organize the draft text into four subheadings for enhanced clarity and to divide the text as follows: (i) the concept, principle and elements of international solidarity; (ii) the right to international solidarity, rights holders and duty bearers; (iii) implementation with a human-rights-based approach; and (iv) negative obligations; (g) The preamble should be less dense but lay out additional references to very specific internationally agreed upon human rights provisions in order to recall that a right to international solidarity was directly derived from the existing legal framework. It was further suggested to consider the use of the term “positive solidarity” to distinguish it from negative solidarity, which led to human rights violations. In that context, a general reference to terrorism would be necessary as an example of negative solidarity; (h) The term “non-state actors” was identified as potentially problematic in international human rights law. That concern needed clarification while taking into account that States were the subject of international law while non-state actors were not. IV. Latin American and Caribbean region 23. On 22 and 23 September 2015, the third regional consultation was convened by the Independent Expert in Panama City. There were 35 participants, including 10 representatives of Latin American and Caribbean States, regional representatives of United Nations entities, including OHCHR, and representatives of academia and non-governmental organizations. 24. A representative of Panama delivered welcoming remarks, stating that, at the international level, solidarity must be seen as the way in which different States achieved cohesion and could accomplish common and collective goals. He underscored the great importance to Panama of the process of regional consultations on the proposed draft declaration and, as host of the event, invited the Latin American and Caribbean countries present to renew their commitment to cooperation and solidarity and to actively contribute during the consultation process. 9