A/HRC/27/63 65. A number of delegations stated that multiple vulnerable groups existed and the draft declaration needed to keep a broad perspective, covering all of those groups, rather than mentioning some of them. 66. With regard to the content of paragraph 14 of the preamble, one delegation requested the inclusion of a reference to the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to reflect the origin of the wording. 67. Some delegations reiterated their wish to mention the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity, stating that the right to peace went beyond State borders. Other delegations insisted on maintaining focus and keeping the draft declaration short and concise. 68. Some delegations suggested moving paragraph 17 of the preamble to the operative part of the draft declaration, as it was of a more action-oriented nature. Furthermore, a discussion was held on the concepts of armed and structural violence. Some delegations stated their preference for using the term armed violence, while some non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders suggested mentioning structural violence in paragraph 17 of the preamble. 69. One delegation stressed the importance of not losing sight, in the preamble, of the universal principles lying at the basis of peace, of which the most important was dialogue. 70. Non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders reiterated previous proposals and expressed support for making references to existing political declarations. B. Article 1 71. During the second reading of article 1, the discussion focused on whether or not to include an explicit reference to the right to peace. Delegations supporting its inclusion reiterated their view that a clear and explicit reference to the right to peace was indispensable in order for the working group to fulfil its mandate of drafting a declaration on the right to peace. In their view, the right to peace had to be given greater prominence in the text. Otherwise the group would be taking a step backwards from what had been previously agreed. 72. Explicit reference to the right to peace was strongly opposed by other delegations, which repeated their principled non-recognition of that right and restated their support for the new approach put forward by the Chair-Rapporteur. One delegation stated that it would not oppose a reference to the right to peace as such, but considered that attempts to define new rights would be problematic. It appreciated the focus on links between development, human rights and peace and wished to further reinforce the development pillar, drawing on the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace. 73. The Chair-Rapporteur recalled that there was universal consensus on the right to life and positions could be brought together around that notion. That was supported by several delegations which appreciated, inter alia, the focus on individuals in the article. 74. In an effort to find consensus, a number of alternative proposals for article 1 were put forward by delegations representing the aforementioned diverse positions, drawing, inter alia, on language from the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace and the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, although a reservation was also expressed about the outdated language of both declarations and about the fact that neither was a consensus document, particularly not the former. 75. Non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders continued to call for the right to peace to be reaffirmed as a fundamental human right and to be reflected clearly in 12