A/HRC/37/63 34. At the same time, the right of self-determination is neither self-executing nor automatic. Recognizing this, the Independent Expert set out, in his 2014 thematic report to the General Assembly (A/69/272), a set of criteria proposing circumstances in which the right of self-determination was at issue and processes by which it could be fulfilled. For example, the Independent Expert indicated that neither the right of self-determination nor the principle of territorial integrity was absolute. Both must be applied in the context of the Charter and human rights treaties. Furthermore, the principle of territorial integrity cannot be used as a pretext to undermine the State’s responsibility to protect the human rights of the peoples under its jurisdiction. The full enjoyment of human rights by all persons within a State and peaceful coexistence among States are the principal goals that need to be achieved. Guarantees of equality and non-discrimination are necessary for the internal stability of States, but non-discrimination alone may not be enough to keep peoples together. The principle of territorial integrity is not sufficient justification to perpetuate situations of internal conflict that may erupt in civil war and threaten regional and international peace and security. 35. Importantly, any process aimed at self-determination should be accompanied by the participation and consent of the peoples concerned. Thus, a reliable method of determining public opinion and avoiding manufactured consent must be devised to ensure the authenticity of the expression of public will in the absence of threats of or the use of force. In addition, while it is possible to reach solutions that guarantee self-determination within an existing State entity, e.g. autonomy, federalism and self-government, if there is a compelling demand for separation, it is extremely important to avoid the use of force, which would endanger local, regional and international stability and further erode the enjoyment of other human rights. Therefore, good-faith negotiations and a readiness to compromise are necessary; in some cases, these could be coordinated through the good offices of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights or under the auspices of the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Independent Expert has also advocated for the United Nations to provide advice and technical assistance to States on viable models of autonomy, federalism and, eventually, referendums. 36. Unilateralism is one of the most serious obstacles to achieving a just world order. But even groups of States can undermine the international order when they refuse to apply international norms uniformly and apply them à la carte in order to satisfy economic or geopolitical interests. Frequently, States perceive human rights as a nuisance or a hindrance to their freedom of action. Thus, a democratic and equitable order is threatened when government lawyers often try to escape clear obligations by engaging in unacceptably narrow (or broad) interpretations of international legal norms. 37. Lawyers have been called “pens for rent” and “intellectual mercenaries”. Government lawyers have special responsibilities and should not act like “escape artists”. They should endeavour to see their role as that of facilitators of enforcement of just laws both nationally and internationally. They should devote their efforts to translating international commitments into concrete action and crafting the necessary measures to comply with treaties and the rules of international judicial bodies. Alas, many government lawyers mistake their vocation for that of defence lawyers, paid to get their guilty clients off the hook. It is not their function to look for ways to dodge responsibility by concocting specious interpretations of the law, making bogus distinctions or inventing loopholes. Would it not be more sensible if lawyers endeavoured to make human rights law implementable — and not constantly try to drill holes into the vessel of human dignity? 38. Sterile legalisms, the fetishism of law — otherwise known as the doctrine of positivism — have emerged as a serious impediment to a world order based on the rule of law, which must also be the rule of justice (see annex II below). Alas, Governments and private sector actors, including transnational corporations, sometimes abuse the law to destroy justice. 39. To strengthen the international rule of law and multilateral law-making, the Independent Expert has recommended amendments to the Charter and the statute of the International Court of Justice, which would bolster the Court, giving the Court the necessary power to initiate the issuance of advisory opinions without being asked by the Security Council or General Assembly, and creating an enforcement mechanism for its 12