A/HRC/4/47 page 18 Annex III COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GROUPS AND MEMBER STATES Explanation of position by the Non-Aligned Movement 60. The Non-Aligned Movement interprets the phrase “international legal standard of a binding nature”, contained in paragraph 52 of the conclusions and recommendations, to mean “internationally legally binding convention.” Explanation of position by Canada 61. Canada is pleased with the Working Group’s work at its eighth session, during which the report of the high-level task force was analyzed in depth. Canada supports the task force’s continued focus on developing criteria and other practical tools for evaluating global partnerships on a voluntary basis, as well as the proposed pilot partnerships and program of work. Canada can also support the proposed renewed mandate for a period of two years, as outlined in the recommendations section of the Working Group outcome document. 62. Canada would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that it does not believe it is appropriate for the Working Group or high-level task force to consider the development of a legally binding instrument on the right to development, as suggested in paragraph 52. It is clear from the high-level task force’s recent report that there is much work to be done on developing the criteria to support the practical implementation and operationalization of the right to development. In this context, Canada interprets paragraph 52 to not mandate the Working Group or task force to look specifically at a binding instrument, but rather that the paragraph is suggestive that, in the future, this may be an option of many that may be considered. Canada will join consensus with this understanding. Explanation of position by the European Union 63. The EU expresses its appreciation for the outstanding work of the Chairperson of the Working Group and the Chairperson of the task force. The EU values the consensus reached at the meeting and hopes that this consensual approach will be preserved in the future. The EU would like to clarify its interpretation of paragraph 52 of the adopted conclusions and recommendations as follows: the EU joins consensus on this paragraph on the understanding that it does not imply a process leading to an international legal standard of a binding nature. Rather, the EU considers that paragraph 52 describes an open-ended process of developing criteria promoting the operational implementation of the right to development. Explanation of position by Australia 64. Australia has serious reservations about the need for the elaboration of an international legal standard of a binding nature, and certainly does not believe that the time is now right for moving into such a process, having heard many comments from a variety of speakers during the course of the eighth session that confirmed this assessment. Australia’s interpretation of