A/HRC/29/45 reiterating that they did not recognize that right as a stand-alone right under international law, even though they agreed that peace was an important goal for humanity. In that sense, they restated their support for the balanced approach taken by the Chairperson-Rapporteur. It was also suggested that the mutually reinforcing nature of peace, security, development and human rights should have been underlined. 60. A number of alternative proposals for article 1 were made by delegations in an effort to find consensus. It was suggested that attention be focused on the promotion, protection and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including peace, security and development. Another suggestion was to refer to the right to peace, to enjoy security and development, allowing the full realization of all human rights, as an entitlement for everyone. An alternative proposal was to acknowledge that, in some States, the elements contained in article 1 could be characterized as a right to peace. Another option put forward was to recognize the right of everyone to enjoy peace in such a way that security is maintained, all human rights are promoted and protected, and development is fully realized. 61. The language proposed by some delegations at the previous session of the working group was also re-tabled, referring to the fact that individuals, groups and peoples have the inalienable right to a just, sustainable and lasting peace, or mentioning the inalienable right of everyone to live in peace and dignity. During the discussion, some delegations restated their positions, but also expressed their readiness to accept the revised text as a compromise. Clarification was sought with regard to the legal difference between an entitlement and a right. The Chairperson-Rapporteur explained that the notion of entitlement was used in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to denote rights that were to be progressively realized. One delegation expressed a preference for not referring to an entitlement, but rather to the ability to enjoy peace, security, human rights and development. 62. Proposals to include additional articles in the revised text were made and supported by several delegations. The first proposal referred to the respect and implementation of the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, while the second one focused on the obligation of all States to refrain from the threat or use of force. It was also suggested that the latter proposal include a mention of respect for the territorial integrity or political independence of other States. 63. Participating non-governmental organizations, which were given an opportunity to making statements during the first reading, favoured the inclusion of some notions relating to everyone’s right to live in peace, recalling that the right to life is recognized by international human rights law. Some suggested that the reference to “security” be removed from the revised text, cautioning on the potential ambiguity of the term – which could refer to either human security or national security, and therefore be a limitation to a recognized right – and reiterating that the declaration was not about the three pillars of the United Nations. C. Article 2 64. The Chairperson-Rapporteur pointed out that article 2 focused on the role that States had to play to promote and protect justice and the rule of law, and to guarantee freedom from fear and want, all elements that contributed to peacebuilding. He added that the article was grounded in the key notion of human dignity. 65. Support was expressed for the draft article and for its action-oriented language. Several delegations by contrast sought to reinforce the declarative nature of the text. 12