A/HRC/15/23 beings were both the beneficiaries and the primary actors in the fulfilment of the right to development. 30. With regard to the question of measurement, some delegations expressed concern that parts of the criteria table, in particular attribute two, seemed to adopt a human rightsbased approach to development. The focus should be on how to achieve economic development to strengthen the capacity of States to promote and protect all human rights. Others emphasized the human rights-based approach to development and maintained that the work of the task force represented a significant step forward in clarifying the practical meaning of the right to development. Considering that criteria listed under attributes two and three were useful and clearly fell within the mandate of the Human Rights Council, one delegation expressed its reservations to some of the criteria listed under attribute one. In particular, criteria 1 (b), 1 (d) and 1 (f), relating to economic and financial systems, extended well beyond the mandate and competence of the Council, and covered issues discussed and dealt with extensively in other organs. However, the same delegation highlighted the importance of the willingness of States to discuss a human rights-based approach to all important development issues, including those dealt with in the governing bodies of United Nations funds and programmes, as well as international financial institutions. Another delegation suggested that a methodology should be developed to simplify the application of the criteria and sub-criteria by various stakeholders. A representative of one non-governmental organization was convinced that the criteria, subcriteria and indicators provided a strong basis for taking seriously the potential need for monitoring and adapting development policies to align them with political commitments to realize the right to development. 31. With regard to the core norm, one delegation objected to the “illegal” attempt by the task force to redefine the right to development, adding that the task force had no mandate to propose a new definition of that right. The same delegation also objected to using some elements of the Declaration and leaving out others, including the right to selfdetermination. Another delegation highlighted the continuing demand by peoples for the exercise of their legitimate right to self-determination in accordance with United Nations resolutions. A view was also expressed that the “constant improvement of well-being” needed to take into account the development differential, meaning different conditions prevailing in countries, while another queried how well-being could be quantified. A suggestion was also made to change the sequence of the wording of the core norm in the chapeau of the annex, in favour of the “rights of individuals and peoples”, and to place the national level of responsibility before the international level. 32. With regard to the criteria, several delegations, while recognizing the pertinence of some of the criteria, reaffirmed their regret at the lack of overall balance between the national and international spheres of responsibility. They did not follow the balance in the Declaration, which centred on the creation of an enabling international environment. In this context, a reservation was made to the potential of the criteria in implementing the true spirit of the right to development, including through addressing the unjust structures of the global economy. Furthermore, the criteria and corresponding sub-criteria, it was argued, went beyond the content of the Declaration in addressing such issues as good governance and participation. One delegation recalled that the right to development criteria had been approved by the Working Group in 2006. As such, the Working Group could discuss and agree on a core norm on the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators, and then assess the appropriate level, be it national, regional or international, at which decisions and policies were to be adopted and taken. It was explained, however, that although the responsibility for decision-making should indeed be primarily at the national level, the crucial issue was that the hostile international environment did not allow for those decisions and policies to be effective. 10 GE.10-14167