A/HRC/36/35 poorly understood and the current hyperglobalization had created extreme inequalities. Neither the right to development nor the Sustainable Development Goals provided a counternarrative. Only by looking back at history could a global “new deal” be brokered based on past experience. Giving as example, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1994 economic bill of rights, he proposed three elements on which to build a rights-based development agenda, namely reflation, regulation and redistribution, and they must be part of the conversation on rights. The big question in the current international architecture was what components of those elements were needed to address the challenges of inequality, instability and stagnation in the current global “new deal”? 52. In the ensuing discussion, the representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement, the European Union, Ecuador, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Pakistan, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Bangladesh took the floor, followed by the representatives of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, South Centre, International-Lawyers.Org, Indian Council of South America and World Trade Organization. Comments and issues raised included the overall implementation, in terms of the right to development, extraterritorial obligations and coordinating international efforts to achieve development as a common goal. A development dimension must be added to any human rights discussion and mainstreaming of the right to development had to be increased. Some stressed that the 2030 Agenda was not a substitute for the right to development, while others referred to policy fragmentation at the national level and the need for binding instruments on the right to development and on business and human rights. Other issues raised included the root causes of injustice, how to link Goal 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies to disarmament, self-determination and support for the process of how best to ensure that the right to development was mutually supportive of the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. 53. The panellists underlined the need for a constructive agenda to build a more deliberative economy, including more South-South cooperation, and defending policy space for developing countries. A development approach to human rights was required. Some called for a governance report to combat systemic issues, considering implementation problems as market failures in a deep sense. Recommendations on developing a binding instrument on business and human rights included strengthening States’ duty to protect human rights by controlling transnational corporations, creating a framework convention with reporting obligations, developing an instrument imposing direct obligations on corporations and an instrument on mutual legal assistance. 54. The panellists and topics in the second panel were: Yoke Ling Chee, Director of Programmes, Third World Network, on financing for development as a means for eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity from the right to development perspective; Xigen Wang, Professor, Vice-Dean of Wuhan University Law School, on eradicating poverty and the role of the right to development; Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, Coordinator, Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples, Chad, on climate change, the right to development and the rights of indigenous peoples; and Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, on unilateral coercive measures as an obstacle to the realization of the right to development. 55. Ms. Chee spoke about the common but differentiated responsibilities that were more relevant today in the struggle to balance the universality of long-term intentions and goalposts in the international community within the reality of today’s deeply imbalanced and asymmetric world. The principle captured the trinity of universality, differentiation and responsibility that was the foundation of the 2030 Agenda. In financing for development, although there was regression in structural analyses and substantive commitments, earlier outcomes had been reaffirmed. However, major developed countries were unwilling to move on the substance, considering it too early to assess implementation progress. The Working Group should ensure that systemic issues were not diluted by the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. Although noting the encouraging signs of the reemergence of human rights action by civil society and the private sector, she emphasized that the global partnership and financing for development were State responsibilities and could not be substituted with private sector action. A genuine and balanced global partnership would enable people and institutions to monitor the common but differentiated 13