A/HRC/15/23 26. One delegation raised the issue of migration as a result of underdevelopment, which led to people seeking better opportunities abroad to raise their living standards. A view was also expressed that the implementation of the right to development should create conditions in developing countries such that their citizens would not feel the need to seek opportunities abroad. Another delegation stressed the contribution of migrant workers to development, and suggested that this issue could be considered by the Working Group in the future. 27. The Chairperson-Rapporteur of the task force appreciated the support of some delegations for a results-based approach, answered questions and clarified some of the concerns raised. He stressed that an international environment conducive to the right to development implied responsibilities at both the national and international levels, and that it was not helpful to downplay national policies and the use of resources, since they were instrumental to international cooperation and assistance, respectively. Lastly, he acknowledged that indigenous peoples and other subnational groups were beneficiaries of the right to development. 3. Right to development criteria 28. In presenting the report on the right to development criteria and corresponding operational sub-criteria (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2/Add.2), the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the task force drew attention to two significant features of the criteria. Firstly, a core norm had been enunciated, strictly on the basis of the content of the Declaration on the Right to Development, together with three attributes, which proposed a short definition of the right in order to address some criticisms of its “normative indeterminacy” voiced by delegations that had voted against resolutions on the right to development in the past. Secondly, illustrative indicators, subject to refinement, had been provided to serve as a tool to measure progress and assist in identifying policies and programmes that contribute to the right to development. This approach, similar to that used for other human rights, treated this right on a par with other human rights, as called for by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in their resolutions. He then explained that the task force had wanted to indicate for each sub-criterion the relevant levels of responsibility but, in the interest of keeping the table manageable, had included this notion in the chapeau paragraph. Thus, the criteria and sub-criteria involved responsibilities of: (a) States acting collectively in global and regional partnerships; (b) States acting individually as they adopt and implement policies that affect persons not strictly within their jurisdiction; and (c) States acting individually as they formulate national development policies and programmes affecting persons within their jurisdiction. The criteria should therefore not be seen as reflecting an emphasis on the national at the expense of the international dimension, since almost all of them involved the obligations of States acting collectively and internationally. Very few — such as effective taxation policies — were exclusively national, whereas most — such as public expenditure on health or education by developing countries — involved resource constraints over which developed countries exerted considerable influence. 29. Bangladesh, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), the European Union, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), the Philippines, Senegal and the United States of America took the floor to express their views on the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. Interventions were also made by observer representatives of the Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition, the International Council for Human Rights and the Indian Council for South America, Cercle de recherche sur les droits at les devoirs de la personne humaine, 3D Trade-Human Rights-Equitable Economy and Nord-Sud XXI. With regard to the overarching approach, one delegation saw the right to development as a way of improving the well-being of the human person; more specifically, not only satisfying basic human needs but also fulfilling the potential of human beings through the realization of all human rights. It was not possible to have development without all human rights, and human GE.10-14167 9