A/HRC/14/38 and duties of States, but also from the perspective of the rights of individuals, addressing human rights in armed conflict situations, the relationship between State and individual responsibility, as well as questions of restitution and compensation to individual persons. 14. The expert concluded by indicating that the right to peace had not yet crystallized as a human right within the context of human rights law. Nevertheless, the distinct linkages which were being forged between human rights law and peace and security and disarmament needed further analysis and might be useful in situating and further understanding an emerging right to peace. 15. The second speaker, Alfred de Zayas, a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, indicated that many rights were both collective and individual. There was a tendency to perceive the right to peace primarily from the perspective of collective rights. Yet, peace was also a personal right, prior to and indispensable to other rights. In that respect, Mr. de Zayas indicated that it was necessary to abandon the paradigm of first, second and third generation rights, because that paradigm had inherent fallacies and biases. He indicated that peace must be seen as an enabling right that empowered individuals to enjoy civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Moreover, one should not be limited to considering peace as the absence of war. Humanity needed to ensure positive peace in the form of social justice. He stated that the right to peace must be understood and implemented in a holistic manner through, among other things, respect for civil and political rights, and must include a focus on the obligations that peace imposed both on States and on individuals. 16. Mr. de Zayas indicated that there was consensus that the responsibility to promote and protect human rights belonged to the territorial State. He indicated that the questions arose when the violations of human rights were so grave and unbearable that it became the responsibility of the international community to intervene. The United Nations had not been established to make war or to engage in military interventions into the domestic affairs of States. He observed that there were situations where international action might have been necessary, and yet it had not been forthcoming. There were other cases where observers had argued that the threshold of violence in the countries concerned had not been reached and yet there had been international action, without the approval of the Security Council. 17. The expert recalled that in July 2009, the General Assembly had started revisiting the doctrine of responsibility to protect. The President of the General Assembly had identified four benchmark questions that should determine whether and when the system of collective security could implement the responsibility to protect doctrine, namely: (a) Do the rules apply in principle, and is it likely that they will be applied in practice equally to all States, or, in the nature of things, is it more likely that the principle would be applied only by the strong against the weak? (b) Will the adoption of the responsibility to protect principle in the practice of collective security more likely enhance or undermine respect for international law? (c) Is the doctrine of responsibility to protect necessary and, conversely, does it guarantee that States will intervene to prevent another situation like in Rwanda? (d) Does the international community have the capacity to enforce accountability upon those who might abuse the right that the responsibility to protect principle would give States to resort to the use of force against other States? 18. Mr. de Zayas concluded by indicating that the Charter of the United Nations imposed certain erga omnes obligations on States. One of those obligations was to condemn the illegal use of force and to deny recognition of the territorial changes arising from the illegal use of force. He noted that while there was a responsibility to protect, there was first and foremost a responsibility to protect humanity from the scourge of war, and 6 GE.10-12138