A/HRC/23/45 beyond the economic sphere to the humanitarian, environmental and other fields where the North/South distinctions have become less clear-cut; (b) The draft declaration will invoke the legal sources of a right to international solidarity that have been pointed out repeatedly in the past, and document the details of international law and international human rights law on which the right is founded. The principles that will inform the declaration will evolve from the substantive content of human rights treaties and other sources of international law; relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council; the interests that States share in common; and the interests of various civil society actors, including nongovernmental and grass-roots groups; (c) The configuration of a right to international solidarity requires more than relying solely on rationality. Since international solidarity stems from the lived experience of interdependence and interrelatedness that inform social relations in contemporary times, a right to international solidarity must take into account how good practices of collective action on the ground—whether among individuals, groups of individuals or States—give rise to desirable outcomes towards the realization of human rights. People and institutions can and do engage in what one author has called ―solidarity relations‖ 1 across distances. Even in the absence of face-to-face contact, modern technology has given them the means for finding commonalities as their basis for empathy and for taking collective action. This phenomenon is evident in the multifarious social movements that have spanned the globe in recent times, and the phenomenal growth of social networking along with the virtual and the real communities it spawned. Best practices in this regard can validate a right to international solidarity; (d) Precisely because international solidarity resides in such a fragile balance of empathy, openness and readiness to take action, its outcomes can either be directed towards the realization of human rights, or manipulated, misused and abused to further perpetuate pervasive asymmetries and inequalities. A right to international solidarity would provide a mechanism to prevent, protect against and manage this risk; (e) A right to international solidarity will establish and strengthen space for participation and, at the same time, increase the accountability of national and international stakeholders by creating duties and obligations, including respect for cultural diversity and the right to peace. It should not be interpreted as replacing the obligations of national Governments to respect, protect and fulfil human rights within their territories. It would support national policy choices, and at the international level, could take the form of supporting participation, for example by making data available to all, including through transfer of technology, capacity-building and the sharing of the benefits of research and scientific progress. As a minimum core obligation, States must desist from actions that violate human rights in other countries; (f) A right to international solidarity will identify obligations that extend beyond the question of establishing mechanisms at the international level for the distribution of resources. Positive obligations would include taking concrete steps to regulate financial markets; cooperating to regulate migration on the basis of solidarity; guaranteeing access to information and communications technology, especially for the marginalized and disadvantaged; implementing measures that guarantee participation in decision-making; and countering systemic violations of human rights. Negative obligations would include not adopting free trade agreements that have the effect of undermining peoples’ livelihoods or 1 See Carol C. Gould, ―Transnational Solidarities‖, Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 38, No. 1 (2007), pp. 148-164. 5