A/HRC/17/39 (c) Positive, harmonious: what is bad-good for one is bad-good for Other. In the real world relations may be mixes of all three. When the negative relation is brought about with intent, the party is an actor, we talk about direct violence, or harm, and about war if the actor is collective. If the violence to a party is not intended (but watch out for acts of commission, more or less intended!) it maybe referred to as indirect, often caused by inequitable structures producing harm structural violence. And then the role of culture legitimizing either or both types of violence: cultural violence. From this follow two concepts of peace: (a) Negative Peace: the absence of violence, like a cease-fire, like keeping them apart, not negative but indifferent relations. (b) Positive Peace: the presence of harmony, intended or not. They are as different as negative health, the absence of (symptoms of) illness and positive health, the feeling of wellness and the capacity to handle some illness.”c B. The collective and individual dimension: peoples and individuals should be rights holders 4. At the OHCHR Workshop (2009) an expert noted that there was a tendency to perceive the right to peace primarily from the perspective of collective rights. Yet, he argued that peace was also a personal right, prior to and indispensable to other rights. He indicated that peace must be seen as an enabling right empowering 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, among other things, through, respect for civil and political rights and must include a focus on the obligations that peace imposes both on States and on individuals.d 5. Another expert at the workshop noted that the “right to peace had a definite individual dimension, which was assessed through the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”e 6. An expert mentioned that there is a generally accepted principle of dual ownership of the human right to peace. He noted that peace was indivisible, and thus manifested itself as a collective right of the human community of peoples and States while, at the same time, directly affecting each human being as an individual right.f 7. Another expert held that the meaning given to the term “peoples” for the purposes of peoples’ right to peace still remained unclear, leading to an uncertainty as to the rights holders. The term “peoples” might have different meanings for the purposes of different c d e f 30 Johan Galtung, “A mini theory of peace”, http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2007/Galtung_MiniTheory.html, retrieved at 12 Oct 2010. OHCHR Workshop (2009), para 15. OHCHR Workshop (2009), para 27. Ibid., para 29.