Peace and international solidarity

The Secretary-General, in his new year’s message on 29 December 2025, stated that “A safer world begins by investing more in fighting poverty and less in fighting wars. Peace must prevail. … Our future depends on our collective courage to act”.¹ Peace is currently acutely threatened by the astounding level of militarization around the world, the resurgence of nuclear arms testing, environmental crises, the deepening of inequality within and between States, the expansion of transnational organized crime, the spread of divisive disinformation and polarization within societies, as well as the weakening of multilateral institutions.

1. See https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2025-12-29/secretary-generals-new-year-message. ↩

At present, the international community is witnessing the evisceration of constitutional and international norms on peace by the violation of Charter of the United Nations principles of sovereignty equality, peaceful dispute resolution and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against territorial integrity by powerful States. There has been a marked escalation in conflicts and a concurrent reduction in financing for development and diplomacy, as well as the cutting of budgets for health, education, human rights and other social sectors.

International solidarity movements have been important for the pursuit of peace by calling for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, for ceasefires during armed conflict in both international and national contexts and for the establishment of truth and reconciliation mechanisms in transitional situations, as well as through protests addressing violence against women and human rights and environmental defenders. Increasingly, however, peace activists are subject to surveillance, arrest, detention and assassination on account of their protests and campaigns against violence.²

2. Cecilia M. Bailliet, “Peace and solidarity: dilemmas in an age of polarization and decoupling”, in Research Handbook on International Solidarity and the Law, Cecilia M. Bailliet, ed. (Cheltenham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024). ↩

From a normative perspective, peace is a Grundnorm at the foundation of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regional law and national constitutions.³ It is also the foundation for the enjoyment of human rights.

3. Cecilia M. Bailliet, The Construction of the Customary Law of Peace: Latin America and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021). ↩

Negative peace (the absence of violence or war) receives primary attention from policymakers and researchers, and there has been a shift among policymakers towards conflict management that normalizes violence. As indicated in articles 2 (3) and 33 of the Charter, peace is a process with an obligatory sequence for the pursuit of non-violent dispute resolution. The aim of peace cannot be achieved without respect for peaceful dispute resolution. Implementation of this norm requires a recommitment to diplomacy and support for mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement tribunals from the local to the international levels. In the present report, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity examines the challenges of promoting international solidarity to support the construction of sustainable peace.

In A New Agenda for Peace, the Secretary-General noted that peace was grounded in three principles: trust, solidarity and universality. As explained by the Global Peace and Prosperity Forum: “Promoting horizontal and vertical inclusion by strengthening the ‘state-society contract’ thus entails the active participation of individuals and groups in the decision-making processes that affect their lives by: (i) building trust, solidarity and universality … .”⁴

4. Neda Salmanpour, A New Framework for Enduring Peace, Policy Brief (2025). ↩

Peace and solidarity are universal principles that form the foundation of mutual respect for common humanity and intergenerational interconnectedness among persons and with nature. Solidarity is the positive corollary to non-discrimination: it is the act or expression of inclusion of persons in the enjoyment of human rights, correcting their exclusion or oppression on account of identity status. The Declaration on the Right to Peace recognizes positive peace through its articulation of equality and non-discrimination as key criteria; hence, inclusive community-based programmes correcting structural violence through health and family care, education, poverty alleviation, and food and housing assistance are important.⁵

5. Positive peace is a term created by Johan Galtung in “Violence, peace, and peace research”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, No. 3 (1969), pp. 167–191. ↩

Thus, solidarity for peace requires the acceptance of the responsibility to acknowledge the diversity and pluralism of cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, nationalities and gender within communities as a public good. A key element is that the attainment of peace is dependent on the expression of solidarity with all persons, irrespective of social class, economic and political status, or opinion. Moreover, the participation of vulnerable groups in transition-to-peace processes is a very important factor in attaining sustainable peace and breaking cycles of violence. Finally, there needs to be renewed focus on creating a culture of peace and solidarity through education in order to improve social cohesion and inclusion.

Although the Independent Expert hoped that all members of the Human Rights Council would provide input for the present report to demonstrate a universal commitment to peace, she regrets that only 17 States responded, listed here with their 2025 Global Peace Index ranking: Argentina (46), Azerbaijan (95), Bosnia and Herzegovina (59), Bolivia (Plurinational State of) (83), Brazil (130), Burkina Faso (152), Colombia (140), Ecuador (129), El Salvador (104), Guatemala (108), Honduras (124), Iraq (147), Kazakhstan (56), Mexico (135), the Niger (143), Togo (126) and Uzbekistan (67).⁶ It is notable that the most peaceful countries in the world (those ranked between 1 and 45) did not provide input, thereby signalling a possible trend of underprioritization of peace and a shift towards the remilitarization of those States.⁷

6. See https://www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/. ↩
7. See https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/the-true-cost-of-peace. ↩

Negative peace (the absence of violence) has been considered to be legally enforceable as there is both State and individual accountability for aggression and violations of international criminal law.⁸ In their submissions for the present report, States emphasized that respect for the principles enshrined in the Charter that included the elements of peaceful coexistence was considered of primary urgency, in particular good faith peaceful dispute resolution, sovereign equality and prohibition of the threat or use of force against territorial integrity (art. 2).

8. Hans Kelsen, Peace Through Law (Lawbook Exchange, 2008). ↩

At the time of writing the present report, the international community was confronting a crisis in which principles of the Charter had been violated in Cuba,⁹ Iran (Islamic Republic of),¹⁰ Ukraine,¹¹ Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)¹² and the State of Palestine,¹³ and risked being violated in Greenland.¹⁴ The Independent Expert underscores the need for solidarity for the normative foundation of peace.

9. See General Assembly resolution 80/4; and https://www.justsecurity.org/137325/us-cuba-embargo-international-law/. ↩
10. See https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/; and https://www.regjeringen.no/no/whats-new/international-law-is-still-worth-defending/id3156510/. ↩
11. See General Assembly resolutions ES-11/1 and ES-11/4. See also https://unsdg.un.org/latest/announcements/russias-invasion-ukraine-violation-un-charter-un-chief-tells-security-council; and https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12407.doc.htm. ↩
12. See https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/01/1166701. ↩
13. See General Assembly resolution ES-10/24. ↩
14. See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260113IPR32390/ep-group-leaders-unequivocally-support-greenland-and-denmark. ↩

Many constitutions recognize peace as an aim and include variants of negative peace characteristics, such as the obligation of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country, the use of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms and/or the prohibition of the use and threat of use of force in non-defensive actions, the prohibition of hosting foreign military bases, the peaceful transit of vessels, participation in peace missions and allegiance to peaceful coexistence. For example, article 9 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan states that Azerbaijan “rejects war as a means of encroaching on the independence of other states and settling international conflicts”. Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan contains an explicit renouncement of war and prohibits the maintenance of military forces. Costa Rica abolished its army in 1949 and declared itself permanently neutral in 1983. Ecuador defines itself as a peaceful territory in article 5 of its Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of foreign military bases and military installations and the leasing of national military bases to foreign armies or security forces. The Constitution of Colombia, in its article 22, states that “peace is a right and a duty of which compliance is mandatory”. There is a process in Colombia for collective claims and persons may also file a claim on the basis of a legal mechanism known as acción de tutela if their claim is also linked to other constitutional rights.

There is a paradox at present, given that the expansion of transnational organized crime has prompted Governments to declare states of emergency based on the constitutional duty to guarantee internal peace and public order. When a state of emergency is maintained over a long period of time, it may constitute a violation of the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and increases the risk of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance and other violations, constituting an oppressive peace. Moreover, Governments are engaging in militarized, at times extraterritorial, use of force against transnational criminal actors that increases the risk of the arbitrary violation of the right to life.

Finally, States are increasingly curtailing freedom of association in cases in which solidarity for peace actors are accused of engaging in non-peaceful actions without sufficient evidence. It is essential to implement peace in a manner upholding human rights, including the right to engage in solidarity for peace actions and expressions.

Solidarity for peace activists file cases with courts to promote recognition of the right to peace. Cases on arms transfers often do not succeed due to problems involving the standing of victims or the consideration of political questions.¹⁵

15. León Castellanos-Jankiewicz and Antonio Guzmán Mutis, “The right to a remedy for wrongful European arms exports: minding the accountability gap?”, The George Washington International Law Review, vol. 56, No. 3 (2025), pp. 277–294. ↩

In its judgment No. 9992-08 of 8 September 2004, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica annulled the support that the Government had given to the “coalition of the willing” that had invaded Iraq without Security Council authorization in 2003. The Court recognized peace as a value and constitutional parameter, but not as a right. The right to peace was later recognized by the Court in its judgment No. 14193-08 of 24 September 2004. The Court prohibited implementation of a presidential decree authorizing the manufacture of weapons, the extraction of thorium and uranium, the production of nuclear fuel and the manufacture of nuclear reactors for all purposes (including military purposes). In 2014, Act No. 9288 was enacted in Costa Rica, reaffirming peace as a fundamental right and neutrality as an international obligation of the State.

In Japan, a case was brought against the location of missiles at a self-defence force base in Naganuma, Hokkaido. Local residents argued that it not only contravened article 9 of the Constitution but also infringed upon their right to live in peace. The Sapporo District Court interpreted the right to live in peace as the right not to be attacked by an enemy nation. As part of civic solidarity movements, thousands of local associations on article 9 seek to protect the peace clause. Although attempts have been made to amend article 9 to formally recognize the self-defence forces in the Constitution, the solidarity for peace movement has thus far prevented such action.

In a judgment of 17 April 2008, the Nagoya High Court addressed the unconstitutionality of the dispatch by Japan of the self-defence forces to Iraq. The Court determined that such actions effectively amounted to Japan itself engaging in the use of force, in violation of article 9 of the Constitution.

Zones of peace may be considered a practical example of solidarity for peace. Such zones vary in terms of demilitarization, neutralization, nuclear weapon-free status and neutrality. They have been applied to areas such as the Indian Ocean, outer space, South-East Asia, Latin America and the South Atlantic.¹⁶

16. See https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e45. ↩

The Southern Common Market, Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Chile declared themselves a zone of peace in 1998 and later in 2014. In 2014, in the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States reiterated its commitment to the zone of peace. This status was violated by the United States of America in its extraction of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, in January 2026.¹⁷

17. See https://www.cancilleria.gov.co/sites/default/files/2026-01-04%20Press%20Release.pdf. ↩

An important joint solidarity for peace statement was issued by Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain and Uruguay, in which they reiterated that the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela must be resolved exclusively by peaceful means: “We reaffirm the status of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, built on mutual respect, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and non-intervention. We call for regional unity, beyond political differences, in the face of any action that jeopardizes regional stability. We also urge the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Member States of relevant multilateral mechanisms to use their good offices to contribute to de-escalating tensions and preserving regional peace.”¹⁸

18. Ibid. ↩

One form of demonstrating solidarity for peace is conscientious objection to military service, including situations involving the illegal use of force contrary to the Charter or violations of international humanitarian law. This right is derived from the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.¹⁹ The right to conscientious objection has been recognized by some national courts²⁰ and asylum for conscientious objectors is guaranteed in some constitutions. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has indicated that conscientious objection may be a ground for a claim for refugee status determination.²¹ The Human Rights Committee has recommended the provision of alternative service for conscientious objectors.²² In the Republic of Korea, the Alternative Service Act came into effect on 1 January 2020. In Japan, in a judgment issued on 24 February 2009, the Okayama District Court acknowledged that the right to live in peace encompassed the right to conscientious objection to military service and to refuse engagement in military production work.

19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 18; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 18. ↩
20. See, for example, Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Alfredo Portillo, Judgment, 18 April 1989. ↩
21. Guidelines on International Protection No. 10, document HCR/GIP/13/10/Corr.1. ↩
22. See Human Rights Committee, Yoon and Choi v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/88/D/1321/2004 and 1322/2004). ↩

States that provide support to United Nations and regional peacekeeping missions are implementing international solidarity for peace. Several States, in their submissions, confirmed their commitment to United Nations peacekeeping operations and regional programmes, yet the United Nations budgetary crisis indicates that there will be a reduction in monitoring ceasefires, maintaining safe zones for civilians and supporting humanitarian relief. This form of solidarity for peace is in a precarious situation.

Within Latin America, there is strong support for solidarity for peace through the implementation of treaties on anti-personnel mines and the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. It is of concern that some countries in other regions are withdrawing from the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.²³ There is also concern that States are failing to implement a due diligence obligation to implement article 7 (4) of the Arms Trade Treaty, which is aimed at preventing gender-based violence through arms export risk assessments.²⁴ Latin American States largely support disarmament and adhere to the concept of the region as being a zone free of nuclear arms, in accordance with the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Solidarity for the right of people to live in peace, free of exposure to the consequences of nuclear testing or the use of nuclear weapons, is urgent, given the significant increase in production of nuclear weapons and the threat of the resumption of nuclear testing, as well as the expiration of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.²⁵ The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons may be considered one of the most significant solidarity for peace movements.

23. Human Rights Watch, “Five European States withdraw from Mine Ban Treaty”, 1 July 2025. ↩
24. S/2025/556, para. 52. ↩
25. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Nuclear risks grow as new arms race looms—new SIPRI Yearbook out now”, 16 June 2025. ↩

Peaceful dispute resolution is an essential element of realizing peace that carries an element of solidarity through good-faith participation. States Parties to the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes agree to use their best efforts to ensure the pacific settlement of international differences, including through mediation, good offices, inquiry and arbitration. Law reflects cultural understandings of peace. In Asian traditions, diplomacy, de-escalation and the maintenance of social order are prioritized, indicating that the value of harmony and relational ethics supports moral leadership and mutual respect in resolving disputes. Examples of the use of adjudication include the Pedra Branca dispute between Malaysia and Singapore and the Temple of Preah Vihear dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, both of which were brought to the International Court of Justice.²⁶ Similarly, Australia and Timor-Leste resolved a maritime border dispute in the Permanent Court of Arbitration.²⁷ Latin American States have often utilized the International Court of Justice for territorial disputes,²⁸ although some offshore cases have been withdrawn from the Court in favour of political negotiation.

26. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962: I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6; and Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 12. See also Rashmi Raman and Samuel White, “Asia’s peace-conflict continuum”, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. ↩
27. See https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/132/. ↩
28. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 392. ↩

Regional institutions, such as the European Union, the Organization of American States (OAS), the African Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, engage in peace negotiations, and regional human rights courts have adjudicated cases involving transitional justice and positive peace cases involving equality and non-discrimination. In the mid-1980s, Costa Rica, along with El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua signed the second of the Esquipulas Accords, which ended long-running military conflicts in Central America. OAS has called for peaceful dispute resolution in the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),²⁹,³⁰ an approach supported by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.³¹

29. A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). ↩
30. See https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-035/25. ↩
31. Official Records of the General Assembly, Eightieth Session, Supplement No. 23 (A/80/23), para. 175. ↩

In its submission, Uzbekistan reported that cases of delimitation and demarcation of borders with neighbours (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) had been resolved exclusively through negotiations, consultations and mutual agreements. Participation in regional dialogues (funded by the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea) and the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia is also aimed at settling controversial issues related to water and energy distribution.

India reported that it used structured bilateral dialogue mechanisms for territorial issues, including joint working groups, special representatives’ dialogues and border management frameworks with neighbouring countries. It pointed to the maritime boundary case between Bangladesh and India that had been submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2014. India noted that it had accepted and implemented the outcome in full.

Switzerland, Qatar and Nordic States have pursued foreign policies that implement international solidarity for peace by supporting negotiation between parties to conflict through bilateral and multilateral initiatives. Representatives of Norway and Qatar have put forward a framework for the international community to move from crisis management to crisis prevention by engaging in preventive diplomacy, guided by international law, respect for humanitarian access, verification of ceasefires and protection of mediators.³²

32. See https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/7/peace-as-policy-mediation-is-the-core-sense-of-modern-diplomacy. ↩

In their submissions, several States underscored the use of mediation and conciliation in labour conflicts.³³ Ecuador has a justice of the peace system that works with rural communities and marginalized urban areas. The justices are elected by their communities and refer to equity and cultural relevance to promote social cohesion through recognition of legal pluralism.

33. See also Argentina, Acts No. 26.589 and No. 24.635. ↩

Peace and solidarity can be considered as meta or enabling rights (facilitating the enjoyment of other rights). Within the European Union, solidarity is recognized as a principle of socioeconomic rights in title IV of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Social Charter. It is notable that equality and non-discrimination are elements of both positive peace and solidarity. As confirmed by the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in their jurisprudence, the protection under the provisions of title IV of the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to families, workers, children, older persons and the environment. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has addressed socioeconomic rights related to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Refugees and internally displaced persons are forced to flee because of violations of peace, including armed conflict, internal disturbances and environmental disasters, as well as combined factors. Some may flee because of persecution due to their peace activism, including conscientious objection to participation in war. The hosting of refugees is an important element of solidarity for peace. Refugees often become peace activists, calling for the restoration of peace in their homelands, and seek to be included in peace processes after the end of war.³⁴

34. Maja Janmyr, “Refugees and peace”, in Cecilia M. Bailliet, Research Handbook on International Law and Peace (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019). ↩

Colombia, Germany, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Türkiye and Uganda are considered to be the countries that have shown most solidarity for peace in hosting refugees.³⁵ The Islamic Republic of Iran has gender equality initiatives in joint projects with UNHCR that enable Afghan refugee women to engage in vocational training and employment opportunities. Such initiatives reduce structural violence and contribute to the promotion of positive peace.

35. See https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics. ↩

Brazil reported that it had launched an innovative voluntary internal relocation programme in response to the influx of Venezuelan nationals through its northern border. It promotes relocation through labour insertion and promotes solidarity by engaging municipalities nationwide in the shared responsibility of protection and integration, thereby promoting social cohesion. Further, it has a community sponsorship programme, whereby civil society groups, faith-based organizations and other community entities assume the role of sponsoring and integrating refugee families into the social fabric, demonstrating a commitment to burden-sharing and deepening the partnership between the State and civil society to safeguard the protection of refugees and migrants.

Brazil also has the Bolsa Verde programme, which provides income support to socioeconomically vulnerable families living in environmentally protected areas. It seeks to encourage ecosystem conservation, promote the sustainable use of natural resources and reduce socioenvironmental conflicts and displacement in order to promote peaceful societies. In addition, its national policy for the protection of human rights defenders and its protection programme for human rights defenders, communicators and environmentalists seek to guarantee the peace of those engaging in environmental protection, social justice and communal rights solidarity actions.

There is concern that the trend towards the externalization of migration and the heavy emphasis on return, revocation of status, use of cessation clauses and elimination of humanitarian protection in both Europe and North America, grounded in xenophobic, unitary solidarity orientations, are eliminating solidarity for refugees and increasing the risk of violence. In contrast, civil society groups, such as Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, support humanitarian corridors, offering safe and legal entry routes for vulnerable people fleeing conflict. Other non-governmental organizations engage in search-and-rescue missions in the Mediterranean, despite being wrongfully subjected to criminal prosecution.³⁶ An additional issue of concern is the fact, reported by several States, that there is a lack of sufficient international financing for demining to enable the return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their place of origin.

36. See https://www.statewatch.org/news/2023/august/urgent-warning-more-deaths-at-sea-ngo-ships-blocked/; and https://www.msf.org/charges-case-against-rescues-sea-dropped-italy. ↩

There is a trend of disinformation on social media and in political discourse that normalizes hate speech and perpetuates the “othering” of persons of different religions, ethnicities, gender or other collective identity, increasing the risk of incitement to discrimination and/or violence. Some States warned that unchecked racist and revanchist narratives after a peace process could promote a renewed cycle of violence. Civil society groups expressed concern that antisemitism and Islamophobia constituted real threats to the right to peace. Depolarization of solidarity strategies and enforcement mechanisms against incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be framed as a form of guaranteeing the right to peace.

The Council of Europe supports a comprehensive approach to combating hate speech as an important element in supporting social peace.³⁷ Similarly, the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence provides a framework to assess advocacy of national, religious or racial hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.³⁸ The Organization of Islamic Corporation has monitoring systems to track Islamophobia and discrimination incidents with real-time data collection, as well as operational response systems adapted to emerging challenges and mechanisms to detect early warning signals that could lead to various forms of violence.

37. See https://rm.coe.int/leaflet-combating-hate-speech-en-november-2022/1680a923f5. ↩
38. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/freedom-of-expression. ↩

Civil society can create spaces for intercultural solidarity dialogues, reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. Civil society organizations engage in a wide variety of solidarity for peace initiatives such as peace walks,³⁹ community-based peace training, interfaith dialogue and social cohesion programmes.⁴⁰ Solidarity actions in response to terrorist attacks have been described as a type of emotional governance tied to restoring social peace.⁴¹

39. Submission from Kailash Union. ↩
40. Submission from Kawish Resource Center. ↩
41. Clara Eroukhmanoff, “Responding to terrorism with peace, love and solidarity: ‘Je suis Charlie’, ‘Peace’ and ‘I Heart MCR’”, Journal of International Political Theory, vol. 15, No. 2, March 2019, pp. 167–187. ↩

The equal participation of vulnerable persons in transition to peace processes is an important component of positive peace. Participation should be in good faith and substantive, as noted by the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes: “When public participation is reduced to a checklist, instead of being conducive to genuine dialogue, then dialogue is replaced by anger and distrust.”⁴²

42. A/HRC/57/52/Add.2, para. 36. ↩

As stated by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the active involvement of persons with disabilities during all stages of the peace continuum (including prevention, resolution, reconciliation, reconstruction and peacebuilding) is essential.⁴³ Similarly, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has called for the increased participation of women (including Indigenous women, minority women and women with disabilities) in negotiating and mediating peace, peacebuilding and development committees (at the national, State and local levels), in the diplomatic service, in conflict prevention and in the promotion of human rights.⁴⁴ The Working Group on discrimination against women and girls has drawn attention to the failure to include women in peace processes, including their lack of participation at the peace process negotiation table.⁴⁵

43. CRPD/C/UKR/CO/2-3, para. 65 (d). See also CRPD/C/AZE/CO/2-3, para. 26 (b). ↩
44. See CEDAW/C/THA/CO/8, CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/10, CEDAW/C/TCD/CO/5, CEDAW/C/FJI/CO/6, CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/7, CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/7/Corr.1, CEDAW/C/AFG/CO/4 and CEDAW/C/BWA/CO/5. ↩
45. A/HRC/59/45/Add.2, para. 71. ↩

The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has also called for the inclusion of women in the process to propose an approach to inclusive peacebuilding.⁴⁶ The Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, has specifically called for action to combat all forms of trafficking in persons to be integrated into peacebuilding measures and into the women and peace and security agenda.⁴⁷ The Committee on the Rights of the Child has called for the participation of Indigenous children in the peaceful dispute resolution of territorial conflicts and for the creation of complaint mechanisms and awareness campaigns to protect children against hate speech due to their participation in social protests.⁴⁸

46. A/HRC/59/50/Add.1, para. 70 (a). ↩
47. A/HRC/59/56/Add.1, paras. 64 and 76; and A/HRC/59/56/Add.2, para. 68. ↩
48. See CRC/C/BRA/CO/5-7, CRC/C/ECU/CO/7, CRC/C/PER/CO/6-7, CRC/C/ARG/CO/7, CRC/C/ISR/CO/5-6, CRC/C/ARM/CO/5-6 and CRC/C/MEX/CO/6-7. ↩

The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent has warned that the failure of a State to address structural causes of conflict, in particular unequal land distribution and the continued exclusion of people of African descent, is a threat to sustainable peace.⁴⁹

49. A/HRC/60/77/Add.1. ↩

The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence has called for victims to take part in peace negotiations with armed and/or criminal groups so that the resulting decisions and mechanisms are compatible with their rights to truth, justice and reparation.⁵⁰ The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons has called for the participation of internally displaced persons and returnees in national elections in order to promote sustainable reintegration.⁵¹ The Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons has called for the protection of older persons from violence.⁵²

50. A/HRC/57/50/Add.1, para. 92 (u). ↩
51. A/HRC/56/47/Add.1, para. 75. ↩
52. A/HRC/54/26/Add.2, para. 91. ↩

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also addressed the emergence of divisive narratives about war that impede peacebuilding.⁵³ The Committee on the Rights of the Child recognizes that a culture of peace begins in the home, and it has highlighted the adoption by Brazil of its National Care Policy, “Growing up in Peace” Strategy and the draft national plan for family and community coexistence.⁵⁴ The Working Group on discrimination against women and girls has drawn attention to the need to address gender discrimination, domestic violence and gender-based violence in an open manner, and to increase the number of women within the judiciary.⁵⁵ Similarly, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a public awareness campaign aimed at combating racial discrimination within society to be strengthened.⁵⁶

53. CERD/C/BIH/CO/14-15, paras. 37 and 38. ↩
54. CRC/C/BRA/CO/5-7, para. 33. ↩
55. See A/HRC/59/45/Add.2. ↩
56. CERD/C/BOL/CO/21-24, para. 20 (b). ↩

The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has commended the creation of commissions for peace and understanding to promote dialogue.⁵⁷ The Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples has called for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in “total peace” policies.⁵⁸

57. A/HRC/58/60/Add.1, para. 96. ↩
58. A/HRC/57/47/Add.1, para. 109 (a). ↩

At the local level, nations that invest in creating institutions for peaceful dispute resolution implement solidarity to build internal peace. Examples include national peace ministries, committees or councils, labour tribunals or commissions, human rights commissions and local mediation councils. In one submission, community policing 45 A/HRC/59/45/Add.2, para. 71. 46 A/HRC/59/50/Add.1, para. 70 (a). 47 A/HRC/59/56/Add.1, paras. 64 and 76; and A/HRC/59/56/Add.2, para. 68. 48 See CRC/C/BRA/CO/5-7, CRC/C/ECU/CO/7, CRC/C/PER/CO/6-7, CRC/C/ARG/CO/7, CRC/C/ISR/CO/5-6, CRC/C/ARM/CO/5-6 and CRC/C/MEX/CO/6-7. 49 A/HRC/60/77/Add.1. 50 A/HRC/57/50/Add.1, para. 92 (u). 51 A/HRC/56/47/Add.1, para. 75. 52 A/HRC/54/26/Add.2, para. 91. 53 CERD/C/BIH/CO/14-15, paras. 37 and 38. 54 CRC/C/BRA/CO/5-7, para. 33. 55 See A/HRC/59/45/Add.2. 56 CERD/C/BOL/CO/21-24, para. 20 (b). 57 A/HRC/58/60/Add.1, para. 96. 58 A/HRC/57/47/Add.1, para. 109 (a). programmes aimed at preventing radicalization and violence among youth and building social capital through strengthening State-society trust were described.⁵⁹ 59 Peace is an interactive state requiring mutual commitment to engage in transformative solidarity between different persons.

59. Submission from Farhan Sahito. ↩

In Mexico, there are institutions addressing non-discrimination, such as the National Commission for the Study and Prevention of Drug-Related Crimes and the Consortium on Peace, Research, Education and Development. These institutions promote conciliation to address discrimination cases involving Indigenous Peoples, Mexicans of African descent, women, older persons, youth, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and others. In Argentina, the Government provides social support for children, access to food for vulnerable people, maternal and infant healthcare, access to vaccinations, kindergartens, work programmes, and scholarships. In Colombia, progress has been made in three key areas that guide the efforts for total peace: the de-escalation of violence, territorial transformation and integrating members of armed groups into society.

In its submission, Pax Christi International stated that civil society and intermediary bodies were essential in advancing positive peace by strengthening democratic participation, promoting accountability and developing non-violent mechanisms for addressing conflict. However, in its submission, Women@thetable noted that one problem impeding solidarity for peace was fragmentation, given that most programmes address issues in silos: nuclear disarmament separately from gender equality, environmental protection separately from peace, and refugee rights separately from digital governance. Because peace requires holistic perspectives, it is essential to create networks of the different solidarity actors and understand their common challenges, such as the harassment of women environmental defenders.

In its submission, the Institute for Integrated Transitions described the concept of “horizontal peacebuilding”, in which translocal and interterritorial relationships and collaborations were prioritized and the role of “go-between” or mid-level peacebuilders was central. The Parents Circle – Families Forum brings together Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost loved ones to violence. Seeds of Peace brings together youth from regions in conflict for camps combining dialogue, leadership development and relationship-building.⁶⁰ PeacePlayers uses basketball to bring together youth from divided communities in South Africa, Northern Ireland, the Middle East and elsewhere. The United Network of Young Peacebuilders brings together youth peace organizations globally. In India, the Ashoka Peace Innovation Network, the Mahatma Gandhi Peace Foundation and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies conduct dialogue programmes, mediation training and non-violence education.⁶¹ The Niger has interreligious and inter-ethnic dialogues to promote solidarity for peace between communities.

60. Submissions from Juan D. Pierre, Madhav, N. Sewpal and Raissa Rambocus. ↩
61. Submission from Shambhavi Kalash. ↩

In Kazakhstan, public councils, youth resource centres and friendship houses of the Assembly of the People host dialogue meetings, training sessions and educational seminars dedicated to issues of human rights, peaceful coexistence, prevention and prevention of radicalization, promotion of inclusive values and prevention of all forms of discrimination. Ecuador has a United Nations programme entitled “Constructing peace” to promote conflict prevention through dialogue. Dialogues with Indigenous Peoples are supported by the Conferencia Episcopal Ecuatoriana.

Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII engages in non-violent peacebuilding in conflict zones in Colombia, Lebanon, Ukraine and the State of Palestine, among others, through Operazione Colomba, its peace corps, whose volunteers live alongside victims of violence and communities affected by conflict, providing a protective presence and promoting reconciliation. One of the association’s most significant initiatives is the campaign 59 Submission from Farhan Sahito. 60 Submissions from Juan D. Pierre, Madhav, N. Sewpal and Raissa Rambocus. 61 Submission from Shambhavi Kalash. for the establishment of a ministry of peace in Italy.⁶² 62 This campaign is aimed at institutionalizing peacebuilding as a central function of government policies. Several municipalities in Italy have already established peace departments. There is a global alliance of ministries of peace.⁶³

62. See https://www.ministerodellapace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CallingforMinistriesofPeace.pdf. ↩
63. See https://gamip.org/. ↩

In Nepal, civil society organizations have established parent self-help groups and community-based youth psychosocial support centres to strengthen local peacebuilding. These platforms facilitate peer support, conflict resolution and the inclusion of children with disabilities. Burkina Faso has a programme to support community conciliation with the participation of traditional and religious leaders, women and youth and provides psychological support and compensation to victims of violence, as well as counter-extremism programmes. It supports education on civic engagement aimed at reducing violence and drug use.

The International Dialogue Centre, the United Religions Initiative and local interfaith networks in South-East Asia and East Africa help reduce prejudice and build trust between communities. Community peace committees in Rwanda, the Fambul Tok model in Sierra Leone and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in Cambodia demonstrate civil society leadership in mediation, trauma recovery and post-conflict processes.

In the Chiapas region of Mexico, community and faith-based organizations have developed participatory and non-violent methods to address conflicts linked to extractive industries. In Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda, Pax Christi International – International Catholic Peace Movement supports women religious leaders through training on active non-violence, trauma healing and peacebuilding, reinforcing community leadership in fragile contexts. In Colombia, the Pax Christi movement accompanies communities implementing the 2016 Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace, including through platforms for dialogue between ex-combatants and Indigenous authorities, non-violence training for rural leaders and monitoring environmental obligations linked to land restitution and deforestation.⁶⁴

64. Submission from Pax Christi International – International Catholic Peace Movement. ↩

In the Asia-Pacific region, the 2024 Nagasaki Catholic Peace Forum produced the Nagasaki Appeal for Peace, in which nuclear disarmament, youth leadership and ecological responsibility were explicitly linked. The training sessions strengthened capacity in peacebuilding, conflict resolution, trauma healing and the provision of support for vulnerable groups, particularly young people and women.

The Commissioner for Human Rights in Azerbaijan organizes a number of activities to promote the right to peace and security, including through the annual month of peace, aimed at promoting universal values and human rights, including the right to live in safety.

Despite the existence of these and many more initiatives around the world, peace solidarity activists are subject to surveillance, data-sharing with State actors, algorithmic flagging, discrimination, intimidation, online platform-enabled harassment, arbitrary detention, termination of employment, educational exclusion, violence, harassment, defunding, denial of banking services, economic exclusion, accusations of being foreign agents, prosecution under counter-terrorism, counter-extremist and separatist legislation, and assassination. Reopening the civic space around the world is essential.

According to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), in 2023, about 612 million women and girls lived within 50 kilometres of at least 1 of 170 armed conflicts, an increase of 41% since 2015. The United Nations has confirmed a 50% increase in cases of conflict-related sexual violence 62 See https://www.ministerodellapace.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/CallingforMinistriesofPeace.pdf. 63 See https://gamip.org/. 64 Submission from Pax Christi International – International Catholic Peace Movement. since 2022, with women and girls suffering 95% of these crimes.⁶⁵ Moreover, the levels of interpersonal violence, including domestic violence and child abuse, and suicide are far above levels of intercommunal violence around the world, underscoring the urgency of evaluating the focus of the international community in terms of safeguarding peace for women and children.⁶⁶ In Brazil, the Maria da Penha Law, which created specialized mechanisms for preventing, protecting and prosecuting violence against women in domestic and family settings, serves as a model for other countries. Further, Brazil has the Women Living without Violence programme and the National Pact for the Prevention of Femicide. Mexico also has a law that is aimed at securing access for women to a life free of violence. It is complemented by the creation of women’s justice centres, shelters and a prevention programme.⁶⁷

65. See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/gender-snapshot/2024/GenderSnapshot2024.pdf. ↩
66. Anke Hoeffler and James D. Fearon, Worse than War: The Global Costs of Violence (Princeton, New Jersey, United States, Princeton University Press, 2026). ↩
67. See https://www.gob.mx/conavim/acciones-y-programas/alerta-de-violencia-de-genero-contra-las-mujeres. ↩

In several submissions, States referred to their national action plans implementing the women and peace and security resolutions in which the Security Council had called for the participation of women in peace processes, prevention and reconstruction.⁶⁸ The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom supports projects that enable women to pursue solidarity for peace initiatives, including those linked to disarmament or ecological justice. There are various organization of women peace mediators, such as: the Ibero-American Network of Women Mediators, the Regional Network of Mediators of the Southern Cone, the Nordic Women Mediators network, the Network of Women Mediators in Southern Africa, the Network of African Women in Conflict Prevention and Mediation and the Southeast Asia Women Peace Mediators. Similarly, the European Union supports the participation of women in peace processes.

68. See https://www.peacewomen.org/why-WPS/solutions/resolutions. ↩

In its article 10, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa recognizes the right of women to participate in the promotion and maintenance of peace, peace education, conflict prevention and resolution, post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation. States Parties to the Protocol are to take the measures necessary to reduce military expenditure in favour of social development and the promotion of women. Under article 4 of the Protocol, States Parties are to actively promote peace education to eliminate gender-based violence.

In Argentina, programmes such as “Marcos de Paz” promote equality and women’s participation in conflict resolution. In El Salvador and Mexico there are projects that train women to be community leaders, defend human rights and serve as mediators.⁶⁹ In Ethiopia, women-led movements, including Gender Empowerment Movement Tigray and survivor-led networks, emphasize gender equality and justice as cornerstones of durable peace. Norway supports UN-Women in promoting the participation of women (including Indigenous women) in peace processes and governance in Africa, Latin America and Asia.⁷⁰

69. See https://www.gob.mx/historico-instituto/es/articulos/estrategia-mujeres-constructoras-de-paz?idiom=es. ↩
70. See https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/foreign-affairs/peace-and-conflict-resolution/innsiktsmappe/women_peace/id2344498/. ↩

In Yemen, since 2017, the Abductees’ Mothers Association has contributed to the release of over 650 forcibly disappeared civilians by facilitating local mediations between the parties to the conflict.⁷¹ The United Nations Development Programme supports additional programmes in Yemen to promote women’s increased participation in access to justice.⁷²

71. Submission from Pixology Foundation for Peace, Development and Human Rights. ↩
72. See https://www.undp.org/yemen/projects/promoting-inclusive-access-justice-yemen-piaj. ↩

In its submission, Women@thetable noted that the role of women in solidarity peacebuilding was everywhere but was either invisible or the subject of harassment and targeting. It called for greater recognition and inclusion of the solidarity for peace initiatives taken by women at the local level and suggested that women be included in digital transitional governance to consolidate sustainable peace. 65 See https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/gender-snapshot/2024/GenderSnapshot2024.pdf. 66 Anke Hoeffler and James D. Fearon, Worse than War: The Global Costs of Violence (Princeton, New Jersey, United States, Princeton University Press, 2026). 67 See https://www.gob.mx/conavim/acciones-y-programas/alerta-de-violencia-de-genero-contra-lasmujeres. 68 See https://www.peacewomen.org/why-WPS/solutions/resolutions. 69 See https://www.gob.mx/historico-instituto/es/articulos/estrategia-mujeres-constructoras-depaz?idiom=es. 70 See https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/foreign-affairs/peace-and-conflictresolution/innsiktsmappe/women_peace/id2344498/. 71 Submission from Pixology Foundation for Peace, Development and Human Rights. 72 See https://www.undp.org/yemen/projects/promoting-inclusive-access-justice-yemen-piaj.

Countries lack mechanisms for community-to-community solidarity that transcends State mediation; despite this, women’s networks across East Africa share violence-prevention strategies and peacebuilders in Colombia and the Philippines learn from each other’s approaches.

States reported in their submissions that they upheld solidarity with women and their right to peace through the adoption of national action plans to eliminate violence against women and gender equality action plans.⁷³ In Argentina, feminist civil society actors network with different actors to identify and denounce gender violence, femicide and structural violence.⁷⁴ In El Salvador, the Salvadoran Institute for the Advancement of Women works to prevent and identify violence against women and promote the economic autonomy of women. There is also a specialized tribunal aiming to ensure that women can live a life free from violence and discrimination. In Myanmar, women helped lead labour protest actions against the military Government.⁷⁵ Guatemala has campaigns to prevent violence against women and the Indigenous Women’s Defenders Office engages in dialogues within communities to resolve disputes regarding the violation of women’s rights. Norway provides financial support to the United Nations Population Fund to promote the adoption of legislation prohibiting gender-based and domestic violence in Chile, Indonesia and Tajikistan.⁷⁶ In the Syrian Arab Republic, in June 2025, a major conference on women’s rights and combating violence against women and girls brought together feminist organizations, youth groups and human rights activists to coordinate strategies for inclusive peacebuilding.

73. See also https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/Beijing%2B30-From-words-to-action-National-action-plans-to-end-violence-against-women-and-girls-en.pdf; and https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/tools-methods/gender-equality-action-plans?language_content_entity=en. ↩
74. Submission from Fundación para la Democracia. ↩
75. Tin Maung Htwe, “Paving the peaceful way of solidarity: the role of nonviolent labourers in Myanmar’s Spring Revolution”, Working Paper 3/2021 (Australian National University, 2022). ↩
76. See https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/handlingsplan-for-kvinners-rettigheter-arsrapport-2024/id3145398/?ch=1. ↩

Brazil has three initiatives focused on women and youth. Empowering Refugee Women is focused on training women for inclusion in the Brazilian labour market. Strong Women is focused on entrepreneurship by empowering single mothers and female heads of household to achieve financial autonomy. Participants receive technical training, materials and financial assistance to launch small businesses. Youth in Action offers targeted training to young refugees and migrants.

Many civil society organizations actively act in solidarity for women’s rights, gender equality and non-violence, providing support services for survivors of domestic abuse, trafficking and discrimination.

Achieving peace requires the strengthening of social solidarity through the use of Indigenous traditions but also by promoting gender equality and anti-corruption norms.⁷⁷ Non-violence, tolerance, mutual respect and intercultural and interfaith dialogue are essential elements of peace education. The rise in interfaith conflict in the form of terrorism, sectarian violence and societal division underscores the urgency of dialogue mechanisms to promote peaceful coexistence.

77. Tim Murithi, “African approaches to building peace and social solidarity”, African Journal on Conflict Resolution, vol. 6, No. 2 (December 2007), pp. 9–33. ↩

Peace education may be considered a means to instil confidence in youth to pursue life with a sense of purpose and connection to the world.⁷⁸ Programmes should incorporate social and emotional learning methodologies to create peaceful civic engagement.⁷⁹ Cycles of violence can only be broken through peace education in which children, youth and adults from different ethnic, racial, religious, social and political groups are asked to listen to each other and deconstruct polarizing narratives to create a common historical narrative, show mutual understanding of shared victimhood, establish trust and build bridges for the creation of a common identity based on shared losses and aspirations for a peaceful future. Both the Charter of the Organization of American States (art. 3 (n)) and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 13 (2)) call for peace education.

78. Lourdes R. Quisumbing, Betty Reardon and Toh Swee-Hin, Weaving Solidarity Toward a Culture of Peace (Quezon, Center for Peace Education, Miriam College, 2002). ↩
79. See https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-social-and-emotional-learning. ↩

In Argentina, the Peace and Justice Service and the Network of Public Educators provide peace education. The Foundation for International Democracy provides courses on bullying, cyberbullying and grooming. They promote empathy, solidarity and respect. Brazil has national human rights education guidelines that are focused on non-violence, empathy, respect for ethnic, racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity diversity and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Article 3 of the Constitution of Ecuador provides that the State has a duty to guarantee a culture of peace, comprehensive security and the right to live in democratic society free of corruption. Article 393 indicates that the State is to guarantee human safety through integrated policies and actions to secure peaceful coexistence, promote a culture of peace and prevent violence, discrimination and crime. The law on intercultural education promotes conflict prevention. The Ministry of Education seeks to eliminate discrimination in classes and promotes a culture of peace through bilingual education that highlights gender equality and respect for cultural diversity.

Article 3 of the Constitution of Mexico sets forth the aim of education as a culture for peace, and it has a national campaign for a culture of peace based on non-violence, tolerance of differences, mutual respect, empathy, intercultural and interreligious dialogue and gender equality, with the aim of fostering solidarity among groups, strengthening the social fabric through peace committees, community learning projects, human rights training and peaceful dispute-resolution workshops.

The law on growing together for the comprehensive protection of early childhood, childhood and adolescence in El Salvador seeks to secure access to quality education and includes provisions that promote a culture of peace and respect for diversity.

In Colombia, Act No. 1732 of 2014 on the Peace Education Chair is a legislative mandate requiring all educational institutions (preschool, primary and secondary) to implement a specific, mandatory curriculum focused on fostering a culture of peace, reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. The Ministry of Education has created an innovative programme incorporating elements of solidarity for peace, including restorative justice, anti-racism education and environmental education. Honduras has a national programme on education in human rights and the culture of peace, for public servants, government officials and the general public.

Togo has local peace committees and promotes peaceful dispute resolution in schools. In Ethiopia, community peacebuilding programmes in Tigray⁸⁰ illustrate that, when education connects to community healing, economic recovery and accountability, peace can begin to take hold. Ethiopian universities have worked with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to develop peace education curricula and teacher-training modules. The United Nations Children’s Fund has reported investments in Tigray education programmes designed to sow the seeds of peace and prosperity.

80. See https://www.pactworld.org/blog/tigray-transition-communities-work-build-peace-and-reconciliation. ↩

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has called for the adoption of peace education that would reject militarization, extremism, violence and discrimination and 79 See https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-social-and-emotional-learning. 80 See https://www.pactworld.org/blog/tigray-transition-communities-work-build-peace-andreconciliation. include prevention, early detection mechanisms, intervention protocols and psychosocial support for victims.⁸¹

81. See CRC/C/IRQ/CO/5-6, CRC/C/ECU/CO/7, CRC/C/ISR/CO/5-6, CRC/C/OPAC/BHR/CO/1, CRC/C/RUS/CO/6-7 and CRC/C/COG/CO/5-6. ↩

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation promotes education that includes positive narratives of cultural diversity while emphasizing moderation, tolerance, compassion, justice and coexistence. It promotes interfaith and intercultural dialogue to foster mutual understanding.

Iraq offers peace education programmes disseminating non-violence, tolerance, mutual respect, empathy, intercultural and interreligious dialogue and gender equality to build solidarity between groups. Kazakhstan has projects aimed at fostering a culture of peace in the country’s educational and social institutions, as well as at the community level. Kazakhstan continues to support interfaith dialogue, including through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran hosts intercultural and interfaith dialogue programmes, conducted through international and regional conferences. It reported in its submission that it provided free education for hundreds of thousands of Afghan children, which represented a significant step towards tolerance, mutual respect and the acceptance of diversity. These children study alongside Iranian students, fostering social cohesion and reducing cultural divides.

The Palestine Writes literature festival is devoted to the belief that art challenges repression and creates bonds between the State of Palestine and the rest of the world. Similarly, the Gaza Music Festival has showcased artists who use their platforms to advocate for rights for Palestinians. Visual art campaigns, such as Art for Gaza, have seen international artists create pieces that reflect the struggles of Gazan people, displayed in exhibitions globally. Additionally, social media campaigns featuring hashtags such as #ArtForPalestine allow artists and activists to share their work and messages of solidarity. These cultural movements not only raise awareness but also create a sense of community.

The Government of Azerbaijan has been taking measures to restore destroyed cultural and religious heritage sites in conflict-affected areas and ensuring safe access to them for returnees, thereby contributing to the culture of peace and tolerance in the country. Another important step forward is the establishment of contacts between civil society groups in both Armenia and Azerbaijan through visits and discussions aimed at building understanding at the societal level. The Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations of the European Commission and Plan International have focused on helping children in Azerbaijan remain in school.

In their submissions, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Guatemala stated that peace education was promoted systemically, including through bilingual education to promote mutual respect. In Nepal, peace education is considered to be most effective when emotional, social and structural dimensions of human development are integrated.⁸² Collaboration between Government and civil society strengthens both individual resilience and collective harmony.

82. Submission from Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission. ↩

Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII conducts peace education programmes in schools and local communities. Civil society also facilitates intercultural education and integration programmes for migrants and refugees. The University of La Plata in Argentina created an association of academics dedicated to the promotion of the human right to peace and its intrinsic connections to other human rights. It collaborates with the University of Mendoza, which has a course on peace education. The Forum of Universities for Peace has members from Brazil, Chile and Spain, among other countries.⁸³

83. See https://um.edu.ar/en/noticias/v-jornada-de-derecho-humano-a-la-paz/#:~:text=September%2019%2C%202025,more%20just%20and%20united%20world. ↩

The United Nations University for Peace offers peace and conflict studies at the master’s level.⁸⁴ The University of Oslo offers a master’s course on the international law of peace and a master’s programme in peace and conflict studies.⁸⁵ The University of Notre Dame has the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies.⁸⁶ The Peace Education Program (active in more than 80 countries) and Save the Children’s non-violent classroom training facilitate interfaith and intercultural dialogue. UNESCO New Delhi supports forums on peace education, intercultural dialogue and safeguarding cultural diversity, including teacher-training initiatives and youth leadership platforms.

84. See https://upeace.org/. ↩
85. See https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/JUS5134/. ↩
86. See https://kroc.nd.edu/. ↩

The Republic of Korea integrates peace and global citizenship into education (in line with target 4.7 of Sustainable Development Goals).⁸⁷ UNESCO noted in its submission that its global citizenship education programme was aimed at cultivating tolerance, respect and a shared sense of belonging to one global community, with the ultimate goal of ensuring peace. In France, Pax Christi International equips educators, parish groups and youth actors with tools to promote non-violence, mediation and conflict-transformation. Its Catholic Institute for Nonviolence held round tables in Africa, Latin America and South Asia that informed key Vatican messages and generated practical training resources now used by dioceses, schools and community organizations in promoting active non-violence.

87. Submission from Whitestone. ↩

The right to truth may be considered a form of solidarity for peace after the commission of atrocity crimes. The validation of truth is a way of bringing peace to victims’ families and healing societies after conflict. In their submissions, States provided various examples of how they demonstrated solidarity for peace by supporting right to truth institutions and memorization initiatives.

In El Salvador, the National Commission on the Search for Persons who Disappeared during the Armed Conflict in El Salvador and the National Commission on the Search for Children Who Disappeared during the Internal Armed Conflict work with international forensic teams, investigate cases, find victims and reunite families. The State recognizes the contribution of women in searching for the disappeared in order to guarantee the right to the truth. In Mexico, women have engaged in solidarity actions to seek the truth about the enforced disappearance of women. In Guatemala, the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights sponsors intergenerational dialogues on State violence and justice for victims. Azerbaijan seeks to identify the bodies of the deceased and to bring perpetrators to justice, which it recognizes as important for the right to truth for families and pertinent to peace and future reconciliation. In early 2025, a consortium of Syrian non-governmental organizations, in partnership with the International Center for Transitional Justice, conducted the first nationwide community dialogue since the end of the conflict. Those dialogues allowed victims, family members of the disappeared, civil society actors, local leaders and officials to share experiences and visions for justice.

It is a paradox that there is a contemporary trend of public order violence that occurs side by side with the establishment of truth commissions. These situations involve violations of procedural justice, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and violations of other rights that require solidarity for the right to the truth to help restore peace.88 84 See https://upeace.org/. 85 See https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/humanrights/JUS5134/. 86 See https://kroc.nd.edu/. 87 Submission from Whitestone. 88 See https://www.icj.org/el-salvador-crimes-against-humanity-within-the-framework-of-publicsecurity-policy/.

The phenomenons of polarization and violence around the world signal the need to create a global coalition for solidarity for peace to promote mutual respect, recognition, trust, reconciliation and peaceful coexistence between groups that have been divided by ideology, disinformation or narratives promoting fear, hate, division and violence. The transformation of societies to incorporate sustainable social cohesion is necessary and requires taking back civic space from toxic actors in order to construct a united national identity based on the universal principles of non-discrimination and equality grounded in sustainable pro homine peace and solidarity. Moreover, full respect for peaceful dispute resolution should be confirmed as the fundamental procedural basis for inter-State relations to ground twenty-first century multilateralism.

States should:
(a) Commit to twenty-first century multilateralism based on international solidarity for peace, strengthen multilateral forums for peacemaking and engage civil society, business actors, faith institutions, academics, schools and others in accepting common stewardship for peace, human rights and protection of the environment;
(b) Fulfil the obligation of peaceful dispute resolution at the international, national and local levels;
(c) Commit to preventive peace mediation, dialogue, inclusion, reconciliation and social cohesion strategies, including interfaith dialogue;
(d) Establish ministries of peace that will promote inclusive positive peace policies supporting non-discrimination and equality;
(e) Establish online dispute resolution platforms extending to digital labour technologies, with transnational coordination to manage jurisdiction issues;
(f) Create rapid response solidarity mechanisms for mediation and preventive dialogue;
(g) Support horizontal peacebuilding approaches between communities across different regions;
(h) Invest in prevention, peacebuilding and policies to safeguard the environment;
(i) Include community mediation networks, women’s cooperatives and local dialogue mechanisms in peacebuilding programmes;
(j) Provide financial support to peacekeeping operations and right to truth and memorialization institutions;
(k) Establish clear guidelines to eliminate cultural violence and prohibit speech promoting antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny and xenophobia and other incitements to discrimination or violence, in line with article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(l) Counter dehumanizing language and hate speech and protect asylum-seekers, peace activists and humanitarian actors from doxxing and other attacks;
(m) Strengthen civil society’s role in peacebuilding by supporting organizations engaged in reconciliation, coexistence and human rights consistent with universal values, while rejecting those that perpetuate division and violence;
(n) Recognize the right of conscientious objection to military service and provide alternative service options and recognize the right to seek asylum based on conscientious objection to military service;
(o) Desist from criminal prosecution of humanitarian actors engaged in the rescue at sea of asylum-seekers and migrants;
(p) Guarantee the participation of women and youth in peace negotiations and peacebuilding processes, as well as digital governance;
(q) Adopt specialized interpersonal violence policies to strengthen the prevention of and response to domestic abuse, femicide, child abuse and suicide;
(r) Create community spaces for engagement in non-violent forms of solidarity, reconciliation and dialogue;
(s) Support solidarity for peace education programmes in schools, universities and civil society institutions (including faith institutions) that foster non-violence, non-discrimination, tolerance of diversity, mutual respect, inclusion, intercultural and interfaith dialogue and gender equality;
(t) Support the incorporation of social and emotional learning methodologies to promote the peaceful engagement of civic actors;
(u) Ensure that solidarity for peace education includes truthful, historical accounts of apartheid and colonial or other forms of structural violence against minorities, Indigenous Peoples, women, refugees, migrants and others;
(v) Integrate human security, disarmament and environmental justice as pillars of a shared solidarity for peace;
(w) Implement article 7 (4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to prevent gender-based violence through arms export risk assessments;
(x) Support ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, end withdrawals from the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction and continue arms control dialogues;
(y) Ensure that actions to counter terrorism, extremism and transnational organized crime and to promote internal peace abide by human rights standards, including the right to participate in solidarity for peace actions, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Sustainable Development Goal 16⁸⁹ and the Siracusa Principles.

89. See https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/governance/publications/global-progress-report-sustainable-development-goal-16-indicators-peaceful-just-and-inclusive-societies. ↩

The international community should raise funds to support demining programmes in countries to where refugees and internally displaced persons would like to return. 89 See https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/governance/publications/global-progress-report-sustainabledevelopment-goal-16-indicators-peaceful-just-and-inclusive-societies.