Peace for development: road map for a peace economy

Peace is a precondition for development. To be sustainable, peace must be rooted in human rights and address prevailing discriminations and injustices. Peacebuilding should also involve the participation of people, especially those who are disproportionately affected by conflicts, such as children, women and minorities. At the same time, development must be inclusive, sustainable and participatory in order to support peace.

Despite a strong acceptance of this trinity between peace and security, development and human rights in numerous instruments and multilateral declarations, peace has become elusive in practice. Conflicts are a major peace disrupter.

Conflicts result in the loss of innocent lives and in gender-based violence. They pollute the environment and destroy biodiversity. Conflicts destroy homes, schools, hospitals and public infrastructure. They also trigger forced displacement of people and increase the cost of living. Conflicts divert resources away from the realization of human rights, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and the financing of a just transition to a green economy.

Moreover, conflicts widen the trust deficit between States and challenge multilateralism. Conflicts rarely settle disputes or address the root causes of conflicts. Rather, conflicts often build the foundation for future conflicts by inflicting violence, triggering international crimes and perpetuating injustices.

Despite these well-documented harms associated with conflicts, the world has been witnessing the highest number of conflicts since the Second World War. What explains this? How is the realization of the right to development impacted by conflicts? What should the international community do differently to sustain peace and what role can the right to development play in this regard? This report grapples with some of these questions.

In his report, the Special Rapporteur seeks to achieve three objectives. First, he elaborates on the nexus of peace with human rights, development, gender quality and the environment. He also unpacks the root causes of conflicts, which disrupt peace. It is especially crucial to understand the political economy of conflicts and expose the neo-colonial roots of conflicts.

Second, the Special Rapporteur highlights how the right to development is affected by conflicts – not merely in countries experiencing conflicts, but globally. At the same time, various aspects of the right to development can be leveraged to prevent conflicts and sustain peace.

Third, this report provides a road map for course correction needed to achieve and sustain peace. The road map entails States, companies and other actors moving away from funding war economies towards investing in a peace economy. It has four interrelated components: foundational, preventive, institutional and deterrent.

This report draws on international standards, policy documents, State practices and the relevant literature concerning the three pillars of the Charter of the United Nations: peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. It pays special attention to the relevance of the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted in 1986, in securing and sustaining peace.

In response to the Special Rapporteur’s call for input, about 70 submissions were received from States and other stakeholders.¹ The Special Rapporteur also organized three virtual consultations to engage with representatives of various non-State actors and participated in four virtual consultations organized by civil society. In addition, he had bilateral conversations with representatives of United Nations entities and governments. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to all stakeholders for providing input in various forms.

1. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-input-2026-reports-special-rapporteur-right-development. ↩

The relationships between peace and security, development and human rights have many facets. This report applies a right to development lens to this discussion, especially the role that this right can play in preventing conflicts and sustaining peace. The Special Rapporteur exposes the political economy and neo-colonial roots of conflicts that the world community must confront in order to give peace a chance. Due to space constraints, the report elaborates only on some illustrative aspects of the proposed road map for a peace economy.

This report uses the terminology of sustaining peace because the boundaries between “peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement have become increasingly blurred”.² Moreover, the Special Rapporteur considers that peace does not follow a set cycle. Rather, multiple approaches should be employed simultaneously in a cohesive way to sustain peace; the international community should not wait for the end of a conflict to begin development.³

2. See https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/terminology. ↩
3. Submission of Saudi Arabia. ↩

Peace is often seen as absence of conflicts. This is a negative dimension of peace.⁴ In this narrow understanding of peace, the focus is on the absence of physical violence. However, in a broad sense, peace means “absence of structural violence” – this positive dimension of peace demands social justice.⁵ Positive peace is “an optimal environment under which human potential can flourish”⁶ and would thus require the expansion of freedoms that people enjoy.⁷ Expanding those freedoms entails respect for human rights and the rule of law, the absence of corruption, the fair distribution of economic benefits, active, free and meaningful participation in decision-making, development within planetary boundaries, and mutual respect and acceptance of diversities.

4. A/HRC/62/38, para. 5. ↩
5. Johan Galtung, “Violence, peace, and peace research”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, No. 3 (1969), p. 183. ↩
6. See https://www.economicsandpeace.org/research/positive-peace/. ↩
7. Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, 1999). ↩

The nexus between peace and security, sustainable development and human rights is widely accepted at the normative and policy levels.⁸ However, as elaborated below, the peace nexus goes beyond this trinity.

8. The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future (United Nations publication, 2025), p. 10. ↩

Maintaining international peace and security is the principal purpose of the United Nations. To achieve this goal, Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. It also stresses the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. The Charter calls upon all Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Article 2). In fact, membership of the United Nations is open only to peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the Charter (Article 4). Peace is thus at the foundation of the Charter.⁹

9. A/HRC/62/38, para. 4. ↩

Over the years, the United Nations has employed special political missions as a key tool to prevent conflict, support peace processes and assist in building a sustainable peace. The number of such missions has increased significantly since the mid-1990s,¹⁰ which reflects the escalation in conflicts in the last three decades.

10. United Nations Special Political Missions 1945–2025: An Overview (United Nations publication, 2026), p. 8. ↩

The critical role of the United Nations in maintaining peace has been consistently stressed in subsequent multilateral documents adopted by States. The Pact for the Future acknowledges that the United Nations has an “indispensable role in the maintenance of international peace and security” (General Assembly resolution 79/1, para. 33). States agreed to redouble efforts “to build and sustain peaceful, inclusive and just societies and address the root causes of conflicts” (action 13), “protect all civilians in armed conflict” (action 14) and “defuse tensions, seek the pacific settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts” (action 16).

The nexus between peace and human rights is made clear in the opening preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where it stated that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Although peace is a precondition for human rights, peace has also emerged as one of the solidarity human rights.¹¹ The General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have adopted several resolutions or declarations affirming the right to peace as a human right.

11. Philip Alston, “Peace as a human right”, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, vol. 11, No. 4 (October 1980), p. 319. ↩

The Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, adopted in 1978, provides that every nation and every human being has the “inherent right to life in peace”.¹² In 1984, the General Assembly proclaimed, in the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, that “peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace” and declared that the preservation of this right and promotion of its implementation constitute “a fundamental obligation of each State”.¹³ Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Peace affirms that “everyone has the right to enjoy peace such that all human rights are promoted and protected and development is fully realized”.¹⁴

12. Resolution 33/73. ↩
13. Resolution 39/11, annex, paras. 1 and 2. ↩
14. Resolution 71/189, annex. ↩

The right to peace is also recognized in regional human rights instruments. Article 23 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted in 1981, provides that all peoples have the right to national and international peace and security. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations Declaration on Promoting the Right to Development and the Right to Peace Towards Realising Inclusive and Sustainable Development, adopted in 2025, reaffirms the right to enjoy peace, highlights the importance of regional peace, and encourages member States to strengthen national and regional policies and legislative frameworks that promote the right to development and the right to enjoy peace.

The General Assembly has also affirmed that a war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace.¹⁵ In fact, the “criminalization of the unlawful use of force – the crime of aggression – is the corollary of this human right to peace.”¹⁶ Thus, the nexus between human rights and peace is clear. About 70 per cent of all peace agreements signed after 1990 “refer to human rights or human rights-related issues”.¹⁷ A 2024 study concludes that United Nations “peace operations efforts to advance human rights contribute to a reduction in violence levels and to longer-term sustainable peace”.¹⁸

15. Resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946. ↩
16. William Schabas, “The human right to peace”, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 58 (Spring 2017), p. 32. ↩
17. Jan Pospisil, “Peace accords and human rights”, in Contemporary Peacemaking: Peace Processes, Peacebuilding and Conflict, Roger Mac Ginty and Anthony Wanis-St John, eds. (Palgrave Mcmillan, 2022), p. 427. ↩
18. Charles T. Hunt and others, UN Peace Operations and Human Rights: A Thematic Study (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2024), p. 4. ↩

It is widely accepted that sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security, and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development.¹⁹ A 2024 study found that the incidence of poverty was two to three times higher on average in conflict-affected areas.²⁰ The lack of peace means that resources that could have gone to eliminate poverty and hunger, provide quality education and health services, ensure access to potable water, achieve gender equality or support a just transition to a green economy are being diverted to fund war economies.

19. Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries (resolution 76/258, annex, para. 81). ↩
20. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and United Nations Development Programme, “Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2024: poverty amid conflict”, 2024. ↩

Increased military spending adversely impacts the achievement of sustainable development in diverse ways.²¹ For example, a 1 per cent increase in military spending in low- and middle-income countries is linked to an almost equal reduction in public health services²² – thus risking the rights to health and life of people in those countries.

21. Nan Tian and Xiao Liang, “Rebalancing military spending towards achieving sustainable development”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, November 2025. ↩
22. See https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2025/09/un-press-release-milex/. ↩

Countries affected by active armed conflicts spent 4.4 per cent of their GDP on the military in 2024 on average, compared with 1.9 per cent in countries without armed conflict.²³ Military expenditure in the Russian Federation has risen by nearly 300 per cent since the pre-war year of 2021, increasing from about $39 billion to about $147 billion in 2025.²⁴ Germany is similarly proposing to significantly increase its defence budget in coming years: from around 62.40 billion euros in 2025 to 153 billion euros by 2029.²⁵

23. Xiao Liang and others, “Trends in world military expenditure, 2024”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2025. ↩
24. See https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/12/26/did-russias-defense-sector-boom-peak-in-2025-a91555. ↩
25. See https://atlasinstitute.org/germanys-path-to-kriegstuchtigkeit-the-2026-defence-budget. ↩

Increased military expenditure also adversely affects development owing to the need for an increase in tax rates and public debt or a reduction in official development assistance (ODA). For example, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has committed to reducing ODA from 0.5 to 0.3 per cent of its gross national income and reallocate that funding to the military, while Japan plans to raise taxes specifically to fund its military build-up.²⁶

26. Liang and others, “Trends in world military expenditure”, p. 8. ↩

There are indications that global military expenditures will continue to increase in coming years, while ODA is projected to decline.²⁷ Figure I shows that ODA – which is a tiny percentage of global military expenditure (see figure II) – has decreased significantly since 2023. Five countries – Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Japan and France – alone accounted for 95.7 per cent of the total decline of ODA in 2025.²⁸ Only four countries met the target of allocating 0.7 per cent of gross national income to ODA in 2025: Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden.²⁹
Figure I
Official development assistance during 2015–2025
(billions of United States dollars)

27. The Security We Need, p. 12. ↩
28. See https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/data-explainers/2026/04/a-historic-decline-in-foreign-aid-preliminary-2025-oda-data.html. ↩
29. See https://focus2030.org/en/historic-drop-in-official-development-assistance-in-2025/. ↩

There is a close connection between peace and gender equality. Conflicts and wars have masculine characteristics.³⁰ Research indicates that gender-equal societies are more peaceful.³¹ At the same time, peace is essential to achieve substantive gender equality because conflicts tend to exacerbate gender-based violence. Girls and women suffer disproportionately in post-conflict situations, including during forced displacement and refugee situations.

30. See https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2018/03/15/masculinity-and-war-let-s-talk-about-it-more/. ↩
31. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, “Root causes of violent conflict: an evidence-based overview”, April 2023, p. 4. ↩

However, girls and women are not mere victims of conflicts. When girls and women are enabled as agents of change, they contribute to creating a more inclusive, peaceful and sustainable world.³² Their participation in peace negotiations contributes to the quality and durability of peace, as recognized in Security Council resolution 1325 (2000). The Pact for the Future also recognizes that “full, equal, safe and meaningful participation of women in decision-making at all levels of peace and security, including conflict prevention and resolution, mediation and in peace operations, is essential to achieve sustainable peace” (resolution 79/1, annex, para. 40).

32. A/HRC/60/25, para. 52. ↩

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development underscores that peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible (principle 25) and reminds States that warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development (principle 24). It also highlights that the environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation must be protected (principle 23).

Despite this recognition of the peace-environment nexus, the negative impact of conflicts on the environment often attracts less attention. Conflicts “leave enduring toxic legacies in the air, soil and water, whether from depleted uranium rounds, chemical contamination, oil and fuel leaks, or abandoned military equipment and munitions that persist long after hostilities end”.³³ Moreover, it is estimated that each dollar allocated to the military generates more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions of a dollar spent elsewhere.³⁴

33. A/80/174, para. 2. ↩
34. The Security We Need, p. 34. ↩

In Ukraine, large swathes of land are at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance, while there has been complete degradation of the soil, water, land and agriculture in Gaza.³⁵ Similarly, the civil war in the Sudan has caused significant direct and indirect environmental damage.³⁶ Radiation caused by nuclear tests also causes serious ecological consequences,³⁷ harming both the environment and the people living in the territories used for testing. The historical legacy of nuclear tests conducted by the United States between 1946 and 1958 in the Marshall Islands is a case in point.³⁸

35. See https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/how-conflict-impacts-our-environment. ↩
36. See https://ceobs.org/the-environmental-costs-of-the-war-in-sudan/. ↩
37. See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4165831/. ↩
38. See A/HRC/57/77; and https://unidir.org/files/publication/pdfs/a-harmful-legacy-en-617.pdf. ↩

While peace is fundamental and possible, conflicts regularly disrupt peace. Conflicts are costly: not merely in terms of the human cost and the damage to the environment but also in financial terms (including the cost of repairing the damage caused by conflicts).

Conflicts result in the loss of innocent lives. For example, the civil war in the Sudan has killed hundreds of thousands of people,³⁹ while the civil war in Yemen had resulted in about 377,000 deaths by the end of 2021.⁴⁰ While conflicts harm all human beings, children and women tend to suffer more from violence perpetuated by both State and non-State actors, as the Israel-Palestine conflict shows.⁴¹ Conflicts have also resulted in the forced internal displacement of millions of people all over the world.⁴² For example, clashes in South Sudan have caused the displacement of more than 2.3 million people within the country.⁴³ The use of new and automated technologies in conflicts, which reduces fatalities among soldiers and in turn reduces the political cost, is likely to increase the propensity of States and non-State actors to initiate and continue conflicts.

39. See https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/power-struggle-sudan. ↩
40. See https://www.undp.org/publications/assessing-impact-war-yemen-pathways-recovery. ↩
41. See A/HRC/62/22. ↩
42. See A/HRC/62/47. ↩
43. Submission of Elizka Relief Foundation. ↩

Conflicts are disastrous for planetary health too. The impact of conflicts is not limited to the rights of present generations. The legacy of conflicts undermines the ability of future generations to realize their human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

While it is difficult to estimate accurately the entire financial cost of conflicts, the cost of armed conflicts amounted to $1.02 trillion in 2017, an increase by 106 per cent over the previous 11 years.⁴⁴ Estimates show that the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of countries that experience a civil war for four years would be expected to contract by about 18 per cent.⁴⁵ Conflict has damaged nearly one-third of pre-conflict gross capital stock in the Syrian Arab Republic, with direct physical damage estimated at $108 billion.⁴⁶ In an interconnected world, conflicts in one region have a ripple effect in other regions. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine increased global food, fuel and fertilizer prices,⁴⁷ while the 2026 aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran disrupted energy markets and supply chains – thus contributing to the global cost-of-living crisis.⁴⁸

44. Institute for Economics and Peace, The Economic Value of Peace 2018: Measuring the Global Economic Impact of Violence and Conflict (2018), p. 13. ↩
45. Hannes Mueller and Julia Tobias, “The cost of violence: estimating the economic impact of conflict”, International Growth Centre, December 2016, p. 2. ↩
46. See https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/10/21/syria-s-post-conflict-reconstruction-costs-estimated-at-216-billion. ↩
47. See https://www.ifpri.org/blog/russia-ukraine-war-after-year-impacts-fertilizer-production-prices-and-trade-flows/. ↩
48. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/15/tallying-the-global-cost-of-the-us-israel-war-against-iran. ↩

In 2025, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program recorded the highest number of State-based conflicts (65 conflicts across 35 countries) since 1946.⁴⁹ About 245,000 people were killed in these conflicts during the course of the year 2025.⁵⁰ Between 2021 and 2025, more than 930,000 people were killed in conflicts – about the same as the total number recorded in the 20-year period prior to 2021.⁵¹ Certain groups of population such as children, women and minorities suffer disproportionately in such conflicts. For instance, it is estimated that at least 20,179 children were killed and 44,143 children were injured as a direct result of the hostilities in Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 7 October 2025, constituting 30 per cent of those killed and 26 per cent of those injured during this period.⁵² The 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups similarly affected a high percentage of children and women.⁵³ The missile attack by the United States on the Shahid Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Islamic Republic of Iran, resulting in the deaths of more than 168 school children, is another example of how innocent children suffer from conflicts.

49. See https://www.prio.org/news/3719. ↩
50. Siri Aas Rustad, Conflict Trends: A Global Overview, 1946–2025 (Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2026), p. 10. ↩
51. Ibid., p. 13. ↩
52. A/HRC/62/CRP.2, para. 26. See also A/HRC/62/22, paras. 16–18, 62 and 63. ↩
53. A/HRC/56/26, paras. 8, 9 and 24–30. ↩

Over the past decade, non-State conflicts have also increased.⁵⁴ Some of these conflicts are fuelled or sustained by States’ use of proxy wars⁵⁵ or States’ illicit financing of terror groups.⁵⁶ Illegal wars in clear breach of international law are being waged, allegedly in the name of peace and human rights.⁵⁷ The selective, inconsistent and unprincipled use of humanitarian interventions to fulfil hidden economic or political goals is fuelling conflicts instead of achieving peace. While such neo-colonial interventions may claim to “rescue” or “protect” populations from egregious human rights violations, these interventions often make their situation worse than before.⁵⁸

54. Rustad, Conflict Trends, p. 20. ↩
55. Chosen Udorji, International Law and the Use of Indirect Force: The Legal Status of Proxy Wars (Routledge, 2026), pp. 1 and 2. ↩
56. See https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/ctc/sites/www.un.org.securitycouncil.ctc/files/cted_ trends_tracker_evolving_trends_in_the_financing_of_foreign_terrorist_fighters_activity_ 2014_-_2024.pdf. ↩
57. Tarik Kochi, “Terror in the name of human rights”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 7 (2006), p. 127. ↩
58. Udorji, International Law and the Use of Indirect Force, p. 192. ↩

The escalation in conflicts and the resultant human suffering during the years since the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic can clearly be seen. Certain world regions have suffered more. In 2025, Africa witnessed the highest number of both State-based and non-State conflicts, while the Middle East recorded its highest number of State-based conflicts ever.⁵⁹ Three out of four least developed countries are in situations affected by conflict and post-conflict situations.⁶⁰

59. See https://www.prio.org/news/3719. ↩
60. Resolution 76/258, annex, para. 81. ↩

Conflicts have become a profitable business for some States and companies. Through unlawful invasions, some States are expanding their territorial boundaries, while others are grabbing the natural resources – including critical minerals – of invaded countries. By fuelling a war narrative and nationalism, certain Governments are able to deflect from their failures to improve good governance and/or achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Like some States, many companies in sectors such as arms and weapons, technology, natural resources and construction are profiteering from conflicts and wars. Revenues of the world’s 100 largest arms-producing and military services companies reached $679 billion in 2024, a 26 per cent increase over the decade 2015–2024.⁶¹ Companies in the United States, with nearly half of all global arms revenues in 2024, remain the dominant suppliers of arms and weapons in the world.⁶² Investors are also reaping benefits from conflicts.⁶³ A 2024 study shows that the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict brought significant positive returns in the stocks of 81.4 per cent of defence companies sampled.⁶⁴ In addition, there are businesses indulging in money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.

61. See https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/sipri-top-100-arms-producing-and-military-services-companies-2024. ↩
62. See https://aoav.org.uk/2025/global-arms-giants-see-record-profits-as-civilians-count-the-cost. ↩
63. A/80/173, para. 19. ↩
64. See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11700249/. ↩

Businesses in conflict-affected areas are expected to conduct heightened human rights due diligence in order to identify the impacts of their activities on human rights as well as on conflicts.⁶⁵ Some companies have taken steps to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts, including by not entering or exiting conflict sites. However, many companies continue to find a business case in directly or indirectly supporting conflicts or at least benefiting from them. The value of the process of heightened human rights due diligence and/or its operational efficacy is especially suspect in situations where meaningful human rights due diligence is not feasible⁶⁶ or where reasonable evidence of international crimes being committed by conflict parties is publicly available. In such situations, companies – especially non-local companies and companies related to conflicts – need to draw certain “red lines”, rather than pretending to have the ability to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on human rights or on those very conflicts.⁶⁷

65. See https://www.undp.org/publications/heightened-human-rights-due-diligence-business-conflict-affected-contexts-guide. ↩
66. See https://www.industriall-union.org/human-rights-due-diligence-is-not-possible-in-myanmar/. ↩
67. Surya Deva, “Mandatory human rights due diligence laws in Europe: a mirage for rightsholders?”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 36, No. 2 (2023), p. 389; and Daniel Aguirre and Irene Pietropaoli, “Heightened human rights due diligence in practice: prohibiting or facilitating investment in conflict affected areas?”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 15, No. 2 (July 2023), p. 541. ↩

There are multiple intertwined root causes and drivers of conflicts. While these causes and driving factors may be contextual, some common variables can be identified. Territorial disputes are a main cause of conflicts.⁶⁸ The disputes over territories could be underpinned by historical, economic, strategic or symbolic reasons. Economic opportunity is another root cause of conflicts.⁶⁹ Control over natural resources, especially in fragile States, is a case in point.⁷⁰ At times, the expansion of territories may be driven by a desire to lay claim to natural resources.

68. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, “Root causes of violent conflict”, p. 2. ↩
69. Mark B. Taylor, War Economies and International Law: Regulating the Economic Activities of Violent Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 2021). ↩
70. Mark B. Taylor and Mike Davis, “Taking the gun out of extraction: UN responses to the role of natural resources in conflicts”, in Governance, Natural Resources, and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Carol Bruch and others, eds. (Routledge, 2016), p. 249. ↩

Colonialism – both in its historical legacy and the current neo-colonial traits – remains a major root cause of conflicts. Post-imperial conflicts exist.⁷¹ Research has indicated that post-colonial societies are more prone to civil violence than non-colonized societies.⁷² The imposition of artificial borders and the exploitation of natural resources by colonial powers, resulting in poverty and/or inequalities, continue to have a lingering effect on conflicts. In modern times, invasions to export democracy and human rights or unilateral coercive measures, when used selectively for political purposes, can also be regarded as a colonial enterprise that undermines the ability of the targeted countries to fulfil the basic human conditions for peace.

71. “Colonial and postcolonial wars”, in Why Nations Still Fight, Richard Ned Lebow (Cambridge University Press, 2025). ↩
72. Christopher Kollmeyer, “Colonial legacy and contemporary civil violence: a global study from 1960 to 2018”, Social Forces, vol. 104, No. 2 (December 2025), p. 640. ↩

Inequalities, political exclusions and corruption also drive conflicts.⁷³ These factors can be grouped under governance gaps and/or democratic deficits. Then there are economic, political, institutional and security factors that push States to increase military expenditures,⁷⁴ which may in turn trigger an arms race and ultimately lead to conflicts.

73. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, “Root causes of violent conflict”, pp. 3 and 4. ↩
74. The Security We Need, pp. 23 and 24. ↩

Peace is essential to realize the right to development. Like other human rights, the right to development is affected by conflicts in diverse ways. First, conflicts result in the loss of innocent lives, which is a direct denial of people’s right to development, because no human development is feasible without life. In addition, conflict-related casualties subject the surviving family members of deceased people to trauma and depression.

Second, conflicts result in the destruction of schools, houses, hospitals, water facilities, infrastructure and cultural heritage sites, thus affecting the realization of economic, social, political and cultural development. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, has reported that as of April 2026, the bombing by the United States had destroyed or severely damaged 857 schools and educational centres, damaged 323 pharmaceutical, medical and emergency facilities (including making 12 hospitals completely inoperative), destroyed 206 agricultural, livestock and poultry units, and damaged 131 historical sites and 50 museums.⁷⁵ In addition to directly affecting the rights to education, health, housing and water and sanitation, the cost of rebuilding damaged infrastructure is significant. Four years into the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the total cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine is estimated to be about $588 billion over the next decade.⁷⁶

75. Submission of the Islamic Republic of Iran. ↩
76. See https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2026/02/23/updated-ukraine-recovery-and-reconstruction-needs-assessment-released. ↩

Third, conflicts force countries to allocate more resources to defence and national security. These resources are often raised by cutting spending on social services⁷⁷ or diverting funds meant to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. For example, the United Kingdom will cut some road and energy projects to pay for a 15 billion pound increase in military spending.⁷⁸

77. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/germany-un-expert-urges-government-show-leadership-promoting-rights-centred. ↩
78. See https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c3ry1zpyz0et. ↩

Fourth, conflicts cause significant damage to the environment, biodiversity and planetary health. While conflicts exacerbate vulnerabilities to climate change, conflict-affected countries consistently receive disproportionately low amounts of ODA per capita for climate adaptation compared to non-conflict-affected countries with similar income levels and climate vulnerabilities.⁷⁹

79. See https://www.sipri.org/publications/2024/sipri-insights-peace-and-security/unveiling-challenges-and-gaps-climate-finance-conflict-areas. ↩

Fifth, conflicts may also result in unlawful occupation and thus undermine the right to self-determination, which is an important aspect of the right to development. The illegal occupation by Israel of Palestinian territories⁸⁰ illustrates how occupation affects the realization of people’s right to development.

80. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2024, (A/78/968). ↩

While conflicts undermine the right to development, this right also provides concrete pathways to prevent conflicts and sustain peace, as discussed below.

The right to development requires that the benefits of economic development are distributed fairly.⁸¹ Systemic economic exclusion of certain groups or an uneven distribution of economic growth creates discontent among people left behind and sows the seeds of conflicts. Individuals and groups who are left behind in a structured way have more incentives to resort to violence and trigger internal conflicts. These people are also easier targets for recruitment by terror or rebel groups, which may in turn fuel conflicts.

81. Declaration on the Right to Development, arts. 2 (3) and 8 (1). ↩

In this context, we should see the relevance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the principle of leaving no one behind to sustaining peace. Although peace and prosperity go hand in hand, such prosperity should not be merely cumulative but equitably distributed.

The right to development is rooted in challenging colonialism in all its forms. In article 5 of the Declaration on the Right to Development, States are reminded to “take resolute steps to eliminate the massive and flagrant violations of the human rights of peoples and human beings affected by situations such as those resulting from apartheid, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, colonialism, foreign domination and occupation, aggression […] threats of war and refusal to recognize the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination”.

Continued colonialism and occupations hit at the heart of self-determination. The presence of military bases in third countries is another form of colonialism. The United States is estimated to have some 750 to 800 military bases across approximately 80 countries and territories.⁸² The efficacy of such bases in preventing conflicts or sustaining peace is questionable.⁸³ In addition, overseas military bases negatively affect the human rights of local people, for example, by causing environmental pollution and leading to the exploitation and commodification of women.⁸⁴

82. See https://www.overseasbases.net/facts.html. ↩
83. See https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2533.html; and https://www.sipri.org/publications/2026/sipri-fact-sheets/developments-and-trends-multilateral-peace-operations-2025. ↩
84. Submission of Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development. ↩

Therefore, if States follow the provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development and refrain from all forms of colonialism and occupation, such measures will contribute to sustaining peace in all regions.

Recognizing a close relationship between disarmament and development, in article 7 of the Declaration on the Right to Development, States are urged to “do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures are used for comprehensive development”.

Since 1950, the General Assembly and other United Nations entities have emphasized the importance of disarmament for achieving sustainable development.⁸⁵ Yet in practice, States continue to participate in an arms race. Global military expenditure rose to about $2.9 trillion in 2025.⁸⁶ As shown in figure II, this expenditure has increased by over 41 per cent since 2015.⁸⁷
Figure II
Global military expenditure, 2015–2025
(billions of United States dollars)

85. The Security We Need, pp. 14–16. ↩
86. See https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-military-spending-rise-continues-european-and-asian-expenditures-surge. ↩
87. See https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/2604_milex_2025.pdf. ↩

Despite growing global military expenditure, the world is witnessing the highest numbers of conflicts. Therefore, this approach of achieving national security by investing in more weapons and military personnel is not working. The foundational mathematical analysis of arms race dynamics by Lewis Fry Richardson, published in 1960, demonstrated that arms accumulation often functions as “an irritant” rather than a deterrent, potentially accelerating the very conflicts it purports to prevent.⁸⁸ More recently, drawing on experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, a study shows that counter-insurgency and military force have failed to produce durable peace and that security requires addressing structural conditions of exclusion and underdevelopment.⁸⁹

88. Lewis Fry Richardson, Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War (Literary Licensing, 1960). ↩
89. Shannon D. Beebe and Mary H. Kaldor, The Ultimate Weapon Is No Weapon: Human Security and the New Rules of War and Peace (Public Affairs, 2010). ↩

A decisive shift is therefore needed towards disarmament. The slogan of the women’s peace protest of 1961, “End the arms race, not the human race”,⁹⁰ matters today more than ever.

90. Thant Myint-U, Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World (W.W. Norton, 2025), p. 73. ↩

International cooperation is a key component of the right to development.⁹¹ While achieving international cooperation is often difficult, there is no substitute for international cooperation, and this holds true for maintaining peace and security, resolving disputes by peaceful means and preventing conflicts. Mutual trust, transparency and recognition of the common good are essential to strengthening international cooperation. El Salvador recognizes that peace and security, development and human rights are interdependent pillars that require strengthening international cooperation and multilateralism.⁹²

91. Declaration on the Right to Development, preamble and arts. 3 and 4; see also A/79/168, para. 33 (l); and A/80/206, paras. 77 and 78. ↩
92. Submission of El Salvador. ↩

Since the human should be an active participant in and beneficiary of the right to development, the active, free and meaningful participation of individuals and groups in development-related decision-making is critical. The critical importance of meaningful participation – especially of groups in vulnerable situations – has also been emphasized by several independent human rights experts and treaty bodies.⁹³

93. A/HRC/62/38, paras. 41–46. ↩

Participation of people must be a reality in all decision-making processes and mechanisms related to peace and security, conflict resolution, truth-seeking, reconciliation and transitional justice. For instance, the Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries contains a commitment to ensuring the “full, equal and meaningful participation of women at all levels and stages of decision-making, and in all areas related to peace and security, including peace processes and mediation efforts, conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and relief and recovery” (resolution 76/258, annex, para. 90). Ecuador reports that its national action plan on women and peace and security for the period 2025–2029 seeks to integrate women’s participation in peacebuilding.⁹⁴

94. Submission of Ecuador. ↩

States and other actors would need to create enabling conditions for participation. Such conditions, for example, require access to information, civic space and elimination of gender discrimination and patriarchal values. Individuals and groups in vulnerable or marginalized situations, children and youth should be given a seat at the decision tables concerning matters of peace and security. The Security Council, in its resolution 2250 (2015), urges Member States to “increase inclusive representation of youth in decision-making” at all levels in institutions and mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflict. It also calls upon all relevant actors to consider the views of youth when negotiating and implementing peace agreements.

Intergenerational equity is one of the overarching principles of the right to development.⁹⁵ Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development makes it clear that “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”. This principle is reiterated in paragraph 11 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23).

95. A/HRC/54/27, para. 13. ↩

Since conflicts and wars do not merely affect the present generation and their human rights, the principle of intergenerational equity is relevant to both the prevention of conflicts and sustaining peace. There is a growing recognition that decisions made by leaders of the present generation should consider the interests and rights of future generations. The Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, of 2023, and the Declaration on Future Generations (resolution 79/1, annex II), adopted in 2024, illustrate this trend.

The Special Rapporteur believes that a shift is needed from war economies to a peace economy. He proposes a holistic road map for States, United Nations entities, companies, civil society organizations and other actors to bring about this shift. Piecemeal approaches cannot prevent conflicts and sustain peace. As Mahatma Gandhi observed, “Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.”⁹⁶ Sustaining peace, in essence, requires creating conditions for justice (social, political, economic, gender, climate and digital) at all levels (local, provincial, national, regional and international).

96. See https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhiworldofpeace.php. ↩

The road map for a peace economy has four interrelated and complementary components:
(a) Foundational component addresses the root causes and drives of conflicts so that various triggers of conflicts are reduced, if not eliminated completely;
(b) Preventive component envisages taking proactive measures to prevent the escalation of conflicts;
(c) Institutional component creates a fair and inclusive institutional architecture at various levels to support peace;
(d) Deterrent component establishes effective mechanisms to hold accountable actors, howsoever powerful, who indulge in unlawful behaviour.

Some of the road map components are similar to the peacebuilding approach adopted by the United Nations Development Programme.⁹⁷ Figure III depicts illustrative elements of this road map under each component. A brief elaboration of some of these elements is also provided below.

97. See https://www.undp.org/crisis/peacebuilding. ↩

In the Doha Political Declaration of the “World Social Summit” under the title “the Second World Summit for Social Development”, it is acknowledged that “social development and social justice are indispensable for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security within and among our nations”.⁹⁸ States should invest their resources in creating a dignified future for all by refocusing on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

98. Resolution 80/5, annex, para 4. ↩

If States reduce even by 50 per cent the current global military expenditures and divert the saved resources to achieve the Goals, it would be a game changer. For example, only $93 billion per year are required to end hunger by 2030, $114 billion per year can provide universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation in 140 low- and middle-income countries, an investment of between $2.3 trillion and $2.8 trillion over 10 years can eliminate the extreme poverty gap globally and $387 billion per year will fully fund adaptation needs of developing countries.⁹⁹

99. The Security We Need, p. 30. ↩

Creating a dignified life for all individuals would also require pursuing development within planetary boundaries and respecting the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. International cooperation, including in the form of ODA, will be critical for developing countries in leaving no one behind and achieving a just transition to a green economy. The abrupt withdrawal of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which had offered aid in support of education, health, water, reproductive health and humanitarian aid, has led to a significant and sustained increase in conflict across the regions of Africa that most depended on support from USAID.¹⁰⁰ ODA will also be vital economic instrument for peace in countries recovering from conflict.¹⁰¹

100. D. Rohner and others, “Aiding peace or conflict? The impact of USAID cuts on violence”, Science, vol. 392, No. 6799 (2026). ↩
101. See https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/economics-of-peace-interplay-between-stability-conflict-resolution-global-prosperity. ↩

Intersectional inequalities – social, economic and political – within and between countries are a major root cause of conflicts. These inequalities create political instability, decrease confidence in democracy, enhance conflicts and diminish appetite for international cooperation.¹⁰²

102. Group of 20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality, Global Inequality Report 2025 (2026), p. 5. ↩

Existing inequalities may be worsened by climate change and new technologies. Climate change-related disasters exacerbate inequalities and may in turn trigger internal conflicts.¹⁰³ Similarly, artificial intelligence may eliminate work opportunities for millions of people and, in turn, worsen economic inequalities. States and companies should adopt policies to ensure that free markets work for everyone, not merely for elites and corporate oligarchs.¹⁰⁴

103. Submission of Dean Bordode. ↩
104. See Oxfam International, Resisting the Rule of the Rich: Protecting Freedom from Billionaire Power (2026). ↩

Inequalities between countries should also be addressed. Apart from colonial exploitation, the current international economic order creates structural barriers for developing countries. Developing countries, for example, are experiencing significant public debt burdens, suffering from illicit financial flows and corporate tax evasion/avoidance, and facing much higher borrowing costs. Addressing such inequalities would require creating fairer international rules and institutions to govern trade, investment, finance and taxation. It will also require relieving the debt burdens of developing countries.¹⁰⁵ Taking these measures will build a solid foundation for peace.

105. Submission of South Centre. ↩

To sustain peace, the world community must address the political economy of conflicts. That would require identifying the financiers and beneficiaries of conflicts, whether they be States, companies, rebel armed groups or terror organizations, in order to stop the flow of money that perpetuates those conflicts. For instance, actors involved in conflicts tend to gain control over economic activities so as to self-sustain conflicts.¹⁰⁶ One can also note a neo-colonial trend of invading or occupying countries seizing or controlling the natural resources of the target countries.

106. Mark B. Taylor, “Economies of violence and peacebuilding: towards policy coherence”, Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre Policy Brief, May 2012. ↩

In addition to strengthening transparency and disclosure regimes, legal tools and mechanisms are needed to hold accountable the actors that profiteer from war economics – whether States, companies or rebel groups – at the national, regional and international levels. Moreover, citizens have a role to play in addressing the political economy of conflicts: conflicts and wars are often fought by using taxpayers’ money and they should demand political accountability of leaders who pursue war economies.

The rule of law, non-discrimination and robust protection of all human rights provides a strong foundation for both pre-empting conflicts and sustaining peace. Eliminating corruption and establishing an effective justice system are equally critical for good governance. Article 2 of the Declaration on the Right to Peace provides that “States should respect, implement and promote equality and non-discrimination, justice and the rule of law, and guarantee freedom from fear and want as a means to build peace within and between societies”.¹⁰⁷ Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda reinforces some of these elements.

107. Resolution 71/189, annex. ↩

A well-functioning justice delivery system helps to settle disputes and thus prevents the accumulation of grievances. As the experience of South Sudan shows, an independent, accessible and effective judicial system that is responsive to the justice needs of individuals and groups in vulnerable situations supports the transition from fragility and conflicts to a peaceful society.¹⁰⁸

108. Erica Bosio and Virginia Upegui Caro, Supporting Access to Justice in South Sudan: A 2025 JUPITER Assessment (World Bank, 2025). ↩

Addressing corruption is central to achieving sustainable peace, because corruption fuels instability, erodes trust in public institutions, undermines the rule of law, diverts public resources, exacerbates inequality and finances conflicts through bribery, embezzlement and illicit financial flows.¹⁰⁹ Several United Nations peacekeeping operations (such as those in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic), as well as special political missions (such as those in Afghanistan, Haiti and Somalia), have therefore been given anti-corruption provisions in their mandates.¹¹⁰

109. United Nations, “Achieving peace through integrity: addressing corruption in conflict-affected settings – practical guidance for field engagement by the United Nations”, 2025, p. 5. ↩
110. Ibid., pp. 41 and 42. ↩

The effective prevention of conflicts requires that systems are in place to provide, and respond to, early warning signals of conflicts.¹¹¹ Investigative journalists, human rights defenders, whistle-blowers, civil society organizations and independent human rights experts play a vital role in predicting future risks to peace disruption. These early warning actors will be effective only if there is civic space and if decision makers are able and willing to act on their early warning signals.

111. Submission of Uzbekistan. ↩

Iraq proposes making greater efforts for “preventive diplomacy”.¹¹² Apart from the Security Council, the United Nations has other actors and tools should be leveraged to sustain peace. Proactive diplomacy at the highest level is one such option. There is historical evidence to suggest that direct diplomacy by the Secretary-General can help in avoiding imminent conflicts.¹¹³ Such efforts, which will revive faith in the United Nations, should be pursued, especially in high-stakes conflicts. Diplomacy efforts by a coalition of “middle power” States can also assist in preventing conflicts or resolving disputes.¹¹⁴ Moreover, informal trust-building channels comprising influential public figures from the relevant States can be established to pursue backchannel diplomacy.¹¹⁵

112. Submission of Iraq. ↩
113. Myint-U, Peacemaker. ↩
114. See https://www.crisisgroup.org/sbr/global/sb14-causes-peace-era-hard-power. ↩
115. See https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/backchannel-diplomacy/. ↩

The evidence is clear and compelling: more weapons and more soldiers do not result in more peace. Rather, the accumulation of weapons tends to trigger an infinite arms race. States can survive peacefully without armies – at present, 21 Member States do not maintain conventional armed forces.¹¹⁶ Rising military expenditures “weaken multilateralism, sideline preventive mechanisms and narrow channels for the peaceful resolution of disputes.”¹¹⁷ Mexico acknowledges disarmament as a structural enabler of sustainable development, because redirecting resources from arms modernization toward social investment is a precondition for peace.¹¹⁸

116. Zoltan Barany, States without Armies: Why They Exist and How They Survive (Oxford University Press, 2026). ↩
117. The Security We Need, p. 27. ↩
118. Submission of Mexico. ↩

Since 1950, the General Assembly and other United Nations entities have emphasized the importance of disarmament for achieving sustainable development.¹¹⁹ Over the years, several treaties have been adopted to regulate, restrict or eliminate certain types of weapons. Multiple disarmament bodies and institutions are also in place.¹²⁰ Yet, the progress on achieving disarmament has been slow and the current geopolitical situation is making it harder to achieve.

119. The Security We Need, pp. 14–16. ↩
120. See https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/disarmament. ↩

Going forward, a more cohesive and prioritized strategy should be adopted for disarmament, with an explicit connection to the pillars of development and human rights. The universal elimination of nuclear weapons should be a key component of this strategy because “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”.¹²¹ Moreover, relevant United Nations entities should build trust between States to make progress collectively in a phased manner.

121. See https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/joint-soviet-united-states-statement-summit-meeting-geneva. ↩

States and other actors should build an ecosystem for peace at the national, regional and international levels. Education has a role in promoting peace. Article 26 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that education “shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace”. Education for peace can strengthen the spirit of tolerance, dialogue, cooperation and solidarity.¹²² Moreover, while multilateralism is in crisis, it also offers an opportunity for States committed to the values of the Charter to build new alliances to promote peace.

122. Declaration on the Right to Peace, art. 4. ↩

When the Security Council was established in 1945, the United Nations had only 51 Member States. The Organization has 193 Member States at present, meaning that the Council is not a representative body that can speak legitimately for all States and world regions. As part of the Pact for the Future, States agreed to “reform the Security Council, recognizing the urgent need to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable” (action 39). Two aspects deserve urgent attention: expansion of permanent membership and reform of the veto power.

With debates and negotiations continuing for decades concerning the reform of the Security Council, disagreements remain about the veto power and the categories of permanent membership.¹²³ Several competing proposals have been put forward. For example, Mexico – as part of the Uniting for Consensus group – advocates expanding non-permanent Security Council seats with longer mandates and immediate re-election eligibility.¹²⁴

123. See https://www.un.org/en/ga/screform/80/pdf/2026-06-10-cochairs-elements-paper.pdf. ↩
124. Submission of Mexico. ↩

The Special Rapporteur believes that Member States have a choice – they can either rise above myopic national views and reform the Security Council or continue to disagree on the reform options and make the Council irrelevant to the maintenance of peace and security. The latter option might contribute to the slow decay of the United Nations and its potential replacement by a fairer international system, because the failure of the Security Council is often conflated by people with the failure of the entire United Nations.

Disputes among States are inevitable. However, it is crucial that robust mechanisms and processes are in place to resolve these disputes through peaceful means.¹²⁵ The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, of 1907, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (resolution 2625 (XXV), annex) provide a foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes. In addition to making a greater use of the International Court of Justice and other regional and international tribunals, States should consider having resort to binding arbitration to settle disputes. Mediation by neutral States should also be utilized in suitable cases.

125. A/HRC/62/38, para. 5. ↩

The current United Nations peacebuilding architecture should be strengthened. Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Charter give the General Assembly the power to deal with peace and security issues. Over the years, the Assembly has used a variety of tools and measures – from condemning acts of aggression or other Charter violations to calling for ceasefires, requesting the withdrawal of forces, supporting good offices and mediation efforts, calling for accountability for human rights violations, and recommending that the Security Council take enforcement action.¹²⁶ The General Assembly should play a more active role in maintaining peace and security, especially in situations where the Security Council fails to act.

126. Erica Gaston, Catharina Nickel and Rebecca Hinkhouse, General Assembly Responses to Conflict and Crisis Situations: A Follow-on Research Initiative to Assembly for Peace: A Digital Handbook on the UN General Assembly’s Past Practice on Peace and Security (United Nations University, 2026). ↩

States should also invest more in peacebuilding. In comparison to global military expenditure, United Nations peacekeeping remains a very low-cost option: the approved peacekeeping budget was approximately $5.6 billion for 2024/2025, with around 61,127 personnel deployed as of July 2025, and the approved budget for 2025/2026 was approximately $5.4 billion. Well-resourced United Nations peace missions that have political backing and a clear mandate can reduce civilian deaths, lower the risk of conflict recurrence, contain violence, reduce refugee flows, strengthen justice and good governance, and improve the durability of peace settlements.

It is concerning that States’ financial support for peacebuilding is declining: with over 120 armed conflicts recorded in 2024, global contributions for peacebuilding declined from $4.9 billion in 2014 to $3.1 billion in 2023.¹²⁷ The Peacebuilding Fund, as of November 2024, had received only $789 million of its $1.5 billion target for the 2020–2026 period, with voluntary contributions declining consistently since 2020.¹²⁸ This decline in support for peacebuilding is not because of a lack of funds, but due to the overreliance on an approach of securing peace and security through increased military expenditure.¹²⁹ States’ abrupt withdrawal of support – financial, political, troops or humanitarian – for peace missions also reverses any chances of sustaining long-term peace.

127. Security Council Report, “In hindsight: the 2025 peacebuilding review”, February 2025 Monthly Forecast, January 2025. ↩
128. A/79/552-S/2024/767, para. 50. ↩
129. See https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/gapo_issue_paper_compendium_2025.pdf. ↩

Governance institutions, including those related to peace, security and conflict resolution, should enable the active, free and meaningful participation of individuals and communities. Special attention should be paid to ensure the representation of children, youth, women and minorities.¹³⁰ Doing so will assist these institutions in sustaining peace. Participation also enables people to build the solidarity that is necessary for peacebuilding.¹³¹ El Salvador reports that its projects to foster “Women Guardians of Peace” and “Women Peacebuilders” are aimed at leveraging the role of women leaders and community mediators.¹³²

130. Submission of Kuwait. ↩
131. Submission of ALTSEAN-Burma. ↩
132. Submission of El Salvador. ↩

Wars rarely secure security or achieve other stated political goals.¹³³ Yet, history tells us that some irrational rulers will always breach agreed international rules and disrupt peace without any provocation or legitimate reasons. Therefore, the key is to achieve security and sustain peace without overspending on arms and the military, because peace and security are essential for sustainable development.

133. “Colonial and postcolonial wars”, in Why Nations Still Fight, Lebow. ↩

Unlike the cold war era, when the arms race was between the two superpowers, the contemporary arms race is unfolding at multiple levels and in several regions, in a multipolar world. At present, achieving national security against opportunistic invasions requires a new approach to security. Instead of mobilizing more weapons and military at the national level, States should focus more on collective security approaches. Trust, solidarity and universality are the foundation of collective security.¹³⁴

134. Our Common Agenda policy brief 9: A New Agenda for Peace (A/77/CRP.1/Add.8), pp. 8–10. ↩

Moreover, it might be desirable that the institutions coordinating collective security at the regional level are apolitical and independent, which will ensure that such institutions make an objective assessment of security threats, rather than being driven by the political rhetoric of certain war-loving leaders. An independent collective security institution that can be trusted by States to defend against unlawful attacks from any country – weak or powerful, with a veto power or without – would have more of a deterrent effect.

Accountability for international crimes, including for the crime of aggression, will be a key element of the deterrent component of the road map for a peace economy. Such accountability should have multiple dimensions: criminal penalties, financial sanctions and reparations. Ecuador suggests establishing mechanisms that are specifically aimed at financing reparations for victims of human rights violations.¹³⁵

135. Submission of Ecuador. ↩

In the past, ad hoc international tribunals were employed for accountability, while at the time of writing, the International Criminal Court is dealing with several high-profile investigations and has issued arrest warrants.¹³⁶ At the same time, the United States has imposed sanctions against several judges of the Court for pursuing accountability in relation to the alleged crimes committed by Israel.¹³⁷ Moreover, most powerful States have not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, there are challenges related to States’ non-cooperation with the Court and the Court’s limited budget.

136. See https://www.icc-cpi.int/situations-under-investigations. ↩
137. See https://www.state.gov/icc-sanctions. ↩

Despite these challenges, a peace economy would require that there be no impunity for serious international crimes. For example, while States have a duty not to assist in genocide,¹³⁸ many States seem to operate in complete disregard of this duty.¹³⁹ The international community should build an ecosystem of independent accountability at the national, regional and international levels. Civil society organizations also have a role to play in this regard, as the 2024 launch of the “Global initiative against impunity for international crimes and serious human rights violations: making justice work” shows.¹⁴⁰

138. See A/80/492. ↩
139. See https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2026/5/23/not-just-the-us-india-to-brazil-51-nations-armed-israel-amid-gaza-war. ↩
140. See https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/global-initiative-against-impunity/. ↩

It is widely accepted that peace has a mutually reinforcing nexus with human rights, development, gender equality and the environment. Yet, peace is regularly disrupted by conflicts in all world regions. While conflicts have a devasting cost for people and the planet, they have become a profitable business for some States and companies. Conflicts benefit those in power and the companies involved in supporting war economies.

At the same time, conflicts are not inevitable. Peace is possible – and it is the best guarantee for national security. Sustaining peace is also far less expensive than funding war economies. What the world really needs is an ecosystem for peace, not a theatre of conflicts. Several aspects of the right to development provide concrete pathways to prevent conflicts and sustain peace. The most critical shift needed is in States and companies moving away from funding war economies to investing in a peace economy. The Special Rapporteur proposes a road map above for this shift, comprising foundational, preventive, institutional and deterrent components.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States:
(a) Take concrete steps to strengthen the mutually reinforcing nexus of peace with development, human rights, gender equality and the environment at the national, regional and international levels;
(b) Support United Nations peace operations, special political missions, peace agreements and transitional justice measures;
(c) Invest in a peace economy (including by accelerating the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals) and move away from funding war economies;
(d) Continue to provide official development assistance to developing countries in line with United Nations criteria;
(e) Respect international human rights law and international humanitarian law during armed conflicts and wars;
(f) Take and/or support preventive diplomacy measures;
(g) Proactively take preventive and gender-responsive steps to protect children, women, minorities and other groups in vulnerable situations during conflicts;
(h) Respect the human rights of internally displaced person and refugees, in accordance with international law;
(i) Cooperate with the Secretary-General and other United Nations actors involved in sustaining peace;
(j) Live as responsible neighbours and refrain from indulging in proxy conflicts or funding terror groups;
(k) Not supply weapons or provide any other support to countries attacking other countries in breach of the Charter of the United Nations;
(l) Support disarmament efforts in good faith and eliminate all nuclear weapons;
(m) Refrain from taking neo-colonial actions, including the imposition of unilateral coercive measures;
(n) End occupations and phase out overseas military bases;
(o) Regulate effectively the activities of companies in conflict-affected areas, including for potential complicity in international crimes;
(p) Ensure the active, free and meaningful participation of women in all peace and security plans and processes at the national, regional and international levels;
(q) Create meaningful opportunities for children and young people in building and sustaining peace;
(r) Engage in good faith to reform the international economic order related to trade, investment, finance, public debt and taxation;
(s) Work together to urgently reform the Security Council so as to enable it to maintain peace and security.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that:
(a) The United Nations promotes tolerance among both people and States based on mutual respect, equality and self-determination;
(b) The United Nations develop a cross-cutting strategy to support a peace economy and collective security;
(c) The United Nations strengthen its peace architecture as part of the UN80 Initiative;
(d) The Secretary-General pursues direct diplomacy in high-stakes conflicts;
(e) The Security Council uses all available tools in its armour to target the financiers and beneficiaries of conflicts;
(f) The General Assembly plays a more active role in maintain peace and security, especially when the Security Council is failing to act.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that companies:
(a) Invest in a peace economy, including by contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals;
(b) Conduct gender-responsive heightened human rights due diligence in conflict-affected areas, in meaningful consultation with relevant rights holders;
(c) Develop, and update as necessary, a responsible exit strategy before entering conflict-affected areas;
(d) Develop, and deploy in conflicts, new technologies in line with international human rights standards;
(e) Refrain from profiteering from war economies and the misery of affected people;
(f) Avoid complicity with other actors alleged to be committing international crimes and support transitional justice measures.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that civil society organizations:
(a) Continue to reinforce the nexus between peace and security, sustainable development and human rights;
(b) Provide early warning signals of potential conflicts disrupting peace;
(c) Continue their advocacy for companies in conflict-affected areas to conduct heightened human rights due diligence that is gender-responsive and includes consideration of risks to the environment;
(d) Engage companies and/or their investors profiteering from war economies to change course and invest in a peace economy;
(e) Contribute to supporting truth-seeking and holding actors accountable for international crimes.