Peace as a Fundamental Human Right: The Progression of its Content and Future Potential

Through the adoption of various institutions, laws, and resolutions, the global environment has been actively involved in promoting and building world peace since the United Nations was established in 1945. Several states and stakeholders promoted a new instrument to ensure fundamental rights for approval by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council. Despite previous discussions, no international treaty has established an enforceable human right to peace, and individual countries continue to maintain that international law does not recognize such a right. In addition to the lack of a document outlining the right to peace on a global scale, people also lack a venue in which to exercise that right in addition to bridging several legal domains and preventing the fragmentation of international law, as an enforceable right would also improve the enforcement of examples of infamously broken international law provisions.

Human rights, democracy, and peace are all part of the experience of the global community. One principle unites them all: human values that are vital to the welfare of all. All three sectors of human activity share global and local infrastructures, and the progress made in these areas demonstrates that they will continue to grow in scope and quality. All three have been greatly aided by recent history. Europe has had more peace than ever since the Roman Empire, with a few notable exceptions. The number of conflicts and deaths worldwide has decreased since the conclusion of the Cold War. In human civilization, the roots of peace have been established more deeply than ever before. The rule of law and democracy are spreading throughout the world. The humanity's desire for democratic frameworks, the destruction of dictatorships, the prosecution of such leaders, increased referendum frequency, and the inclusion of women, youth, and foreigners in the representation process are a few examples[1]. Experts who looked at some of the relationships between democracy, human rights, and peace concluded that these three essential ideas and processes are ingrained in human nature, just as they are in institutions; they are mutually beneficial and cannot exist independently. However, through the lens of the fundamental rights paradigm, the volatility presents in the global political arena – including new “cold wars” and armed conflicts raises doubts about the conventional understanding and definitions of peace.

Current trends in global development are characterized by a radical transformation of the social order, accompanied by the rapid development of leadership in the information and communication component. Along with the active improvement of the international legal framework, the expansion of its powers, and democratization, the risk of war, revolution, and the threat of nuclear danger is growing. This is seen as a consequence of the dynamics of established ideologies, the reassessment of social values and habitual beliefs, and the development of new behavioral models. The aforementioned prerequisites prompt an active search for ways to ensure peace. In the global context of an integrated social space, the definition of “peace” has renewed meaning and increased value. Today, peace is a formation, a state that should be based on the solidarity of the global community. Today, it is clear that mitigating the risks of new military conflicts and ending existing wars cannot be achieved through interstate political agreements alone. The crisis geopolitical situation calls for additional multidisciplinary research on the human right to peace, making the subject of this study particularly relevant.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the specifics of the human right to peace, its evolution, and prospects for improvement against geopolitical risks.

Literature Review

The subject of preserving peace has long been a focus of scientific investigation by experts across the world. Thus, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Kant were the first representatives of theory to address questions about this scientific trend. The topic is incredibly pertinent now, as mankind is on the eve of a massive global reorganization.

Although it appears simple, the link between conflict transformation and human rights guarantees is not simple. The topic of whether the two genuinely pursue conflicting objectives or have a shared agenda has been raised often. The divisive rhetoric of “peace versus justice” has often been used to cushion this discussion. Persistent prejudices that see politics against norms and pragmatism against principle suggest that human rights concerns may be making the conflict resolution process more difficult by adding or amplifying the moral component of conflict[2]. From this angle, two distinct groups with strong tactics come into focus: the pragmatist, deal-making conflict managers on the one hand, and the maximalist, naming-and-shaming rights activists on the other. 

However, each of the two fields has its own set of problems. Over the decades, there have been controversial discussions regarding the scope and essence of the discourse. The argument that human rights are of Western origin and do not adapt well to cultural differences has been contested against claims of universal applicability; an all-encompassing vision of indivisible and interdependent rights has been contested against the accent on necessary trade-offs between (core) rights and (not crucially essential) aspirations; and a debate concerning duty bearers outside of the state, such as multinational corporations[3]. Political divisions have also been linked to these human rights discussions: the conflict between the Cold War blocs manifested itself in a dispute over the fundamental principles of human rights, among other things. In this dispute, the Eastern block was pushing social, economic, and cultural rights while the West was defending main rights; this emphasisal split still influences discussions between “the” North and “the” South.

The Right to Peace represents the friction and dispute that attempts to establish Third Generation Rights or ‘hybrid’ human rights have sparked. States in the Global South use the human rights system to further their interests. Still, they meet opposition from still-dominant Global North states that subscribe to different human rights philosophies. Different experts also oppose the adoption of non-traditional subjects such as equality or democracy, claiming that it will weaken the international human rights system rather than enhance the outcomes. Freedman and Lottholz[4] use a discursive hybridity paradigm to explain how international human rights law changes in response to altering dynamics in global politics. They demonstrate how the increasingly substantial alterations in the corpus of human rights texts reflect the heteroglossia and diversity of values, norms, and cultural frameworks that characterize human rights debates. The Right to Peace and other hybrid human rights can thus be viewed as expressions of ‘dialogicality’, but they are also plagued by inconsistency, ambiguity, divergent understandings among their proponents, and related implementation challenges.

In contrast, schools of conflict resolution and transformation have tried to establish a balance between, in fact, two poles pragmatism and principle. Although they have only just emerged in academic and policy circles, their brief history has been marked by a number of confrontations and controversies, culminating in the formation of rival schools of thought. These discussions have mostly focused on the causes and origins of conflict (for example, agency-based or structural approaches); the conflict escalation and de-escalation dynamics (that is, linear, circular, or systemic); the methods and results of conflict management (top-down and bottom-up approaches, negative or positive peace); and, lastly, the strategy and ethics of third-party intervention (prescriptive or “elicitive” approaches, etc.).

Paupp[5] emphasizes that ensuring the right to peace should be viewed as arising from activities and situations that promote peace. Peace is not a "product". Rather, peace emerges as a result of how humans choose to solve issues, the nature of the conditions they choose to embrace or reject, and the objectives and priorities they establish for themselves and others. In brief, implementing the right to peace requires a series of actions. Geopolitical realities, and institutional, structural, and cultural limits also influence it.

Despite their lengthy history, both domains are now firmly on the international agenda. Human rights are now a formal aspect of international politics because to the creation of the International Criminal Court, the recent International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the worldwide transitional justice movement[6]. However, academics point out that conflict resolution and transformation programs and rhetoric, with a heavy emphasis on dealing with the past and fostering reconciliation, are commonly included in various responses to armed conflict[7]. Most contemporary military conflicts have been settled by negotiated agreements, occasionally mediated by outside diplomats, insider mediators, or professional facilitators. Given that nearly one-third of resolved conflicts revert to violent warfare within five years, post-war peace consolidation initiatives that seek to demilitarize, democratize, develop, and reconcile these nations have emerged as essential elements of international intervention and are now firmly on the agendas of the UN, EU, and World Bank.

The realization and process management of "peace with justice" are increasingly emerging as the primary problems, and the disciplines are becoming more overlapped due to the increased emphasis on complete transitional justice and reconciliation procedures. Many analysts and commentators see a strong common calling among what Peter Uvin refers to as the “communities of principled social change”[8], which are composed of conflict transformation/peacebuilding practitioners, human rights activists, and development workers, despite all the tension depicted above. This shared calling is building communities and structures that honor the needs and possibilities of each individual who is a part of them.

A basic human right, peace is acknowledged both directly in the United Nations Declaration approved by the General Assembly on December 11, 2016, and implicitly in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration. Supporting ongoing attention to an instrument that inherently restates universal values and principles is seen by the University of Padova Human Rights Center as part of its “social responsibility”[9].

Modern scholars[10] [11] pay considerable attention to the specifics of the current stage of society’s development. In particular, according to Onishchenko and Suniehin[12], the boundaries of the subjectivity of the rights of the category under study should not be limited to integrated concepts (societies, people). The boundaries are narrowed, in fact, to an individual. In continuation, Fry[13] argues that peace is an inherent property of human society. War is seen as a normal process that is subject to law regulation. 

According to the generally accepted norms approved by the Rome Statute, the phenomenon of aggression is considered a violation of international law[14], [15]. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, this issue has become particularly acute in the scientific discourse. These events have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Scholars Noniak[16], Kliuieva and Soloviova[17] argue that recent events prove that there is no “normality” in war, given the numerous human losses.

The problem of the evolution of the right to peace is also addressed in the works of contemporary scholars Shamraieva[18], Buhaienko[19], and Kresin[20]. They explore the essential foundations of the right to peace and highlight some influential decisions in the global legal dimension. Despite scholars’ significant achievements, the discourse on defining an innovative approach to the human right to peace and its guarantees in the modern global social environment remains open.

Research Methods

The study used general scientific methods and unique scientific methods. In particular, systematic analysis, synthesis, comparison, and scientific abstraction were used, as well as functional, sociological, historical, and comparative legal methods. The research process included two main stages: the collection of informative data and its analytical processing. In the first stage, primary sources of information were used. The research materials included industry-specific scientific papers, publications, and materials from scientific and practical conferences in the industry. The sample size of the information sources was justified in the context of practical realities.

With the help of scientific abstraction and systematic analysis, the author defines the essence of the phenomenon of the human right to peace and identifies the main functionality of this definition. The systemic analysis made it possible to establish the essence of conceptual categories, and the synthesis allowed for a meaningful combination of the identified aspects in the direction of the identical and essential to the diversity, integrating general and individual aspects into a single concept.

The historical method was used to study the evolution of the phenomenon under study. The comparative legal method made it possible to identify the specifics of the impact of foreign policy factors on the development of the phenomenon of the human right to peace in the evolutionary context.

The author uses the abstraction of potential practical feasibility, which is considered a mental distraction from the standard properties of state-building in the regulatory and legal aspects, with simultaneous identification of the desired significant properties.

Results and Discussion

The value of peace has been highly relevant. It has been the subject of research within the framework of political and philosophical doctrine. Even Aristotle substantiated that peace is a necessary condition for the life of a state, even a slave state[21], [22]. During the Middle Ages, views on peace were significantly transformed from being seen purely in a religious context and later as a relationship between peoples and Christian states[23]. In the modern period, the phenomenon of peace has undergone intensive development. Peace acquires the notion of universal potential, a law dictated by higher justice[24]. The definition of peace becomes identical to the concepts of immutability and eternity.

Penn (1693) and Bentham (1789) developed active measures to guarantee peace[25]. Kant[26] proposed a concept of peace (“Toward Eternal Peace”). 

The peace has been a prevailing social ideal and a primary objective of international law for millennia[27]. Following World War II, the global environment historically positioned itself to promote world peace and safeguard everyone’s human rights. The UN and the 1948 UDHR, two significant instruments advancing global human rights and peace, were established and adopted during this time. However, the advancement of basic human rights took precedence over the advancement of peace, and a significant gap between the two grew over time. Consequently, the concept and existence of a legal and justiciable “R2P” are being questioned by the global environment[28].

It becomes clear from reading the UDHR’s Preamble that peace is part of the three pillars of leading a respectable life. However, the issue remains: is it possible to define peace? Johan Galtung was the first to propose the multifaceted idea of peace as a complicated combination of positive and negative peace. He asserts that positive peace “is the integration of human society" and eradicating structural violence. In contrast, negative peace "is the absence of violence, absence of war” (Galtung as cited in[29]). The definition of positive peace is presented in Fig. 1. Over time, peace came to be more closely linked with averting conflict and bloodshed than with collaboration and advancement because the notion of constructive peace was overly expansive. Conversely, many also contended that there is no widely recognized concept of peace since it lacks a precise definition and bounds[30]. In addition to the disputes over what constitutes peace, there have long been arguments about whether or not the R2P exists and, if it does, how much the global environment should adhere to and advance it.

According to Bailliet and Larsen[31], a third-generation right known as R2P exists. According to Karel Vasak[32], third-generation rights correlate with “fraternity”, meaning they facilitate social solidarity and allow for a worldwide coordinated response to the different threats to the preservation of guarantees of the right to peace . In this way, it also concurs that peace is an evolving solidarity right. Karel Vasak gave a succinct but methodical explanation of what he referred to as “the third generation of human rights” in his opening remarks at the International Institute of Human Rights’ tenth study session in 1979[33]. According to Vasak, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) served as the primary source for the first generation of rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) defined and outlined the second generation of human rights. These documents served as the cornerstones for a developing trend in international law that aimed to articulate human rights to peace and development.

Additionally, these documents supported the idea of sustainable development, which is committed to preserving the environment. In this sense, Vasak maintained that a number of new human rights, including the rights to peace, development, and a sustainable environment, were already beginning to emerge, even if the third covenant was not considered until 1981. According to Vasak, the three main principles of the French Revolution, liberty, equality, and fraternity, were the foundation for these three generations of rights[34]. As such, these new rights should be conceived of as solidarity rights.

Figure 1. The concept of positive peace

Source: Turan[35]

Furthermore, Singh and Swarup[36] argue that rather than using the name ‘R2P’ since it lacks legal and enforceable reach, peacekeeping strategy should be referred to as a meta-right, a form of overarching entitlement whose extent is explained by related enforceable human rights. Therefore, the two components of peace are the preservation of peace between and within states and the elimination of structural violence through the use of enforceable human rights, such as those related to life, development, education, health, the environment, crimes of aggression, and self-determination.

There have been a range of debates concerning the legal aspect of guarantees of the right to peace. The initial step in this direction was the adoption of several documents under the auspices of the United Nations: the Declarations of 1965, 1978, 1984, and 1999, and the Declaration on the Right to Peace of 2016.

It was announced during an international summit on Human Rights at the UN in 1968 that ‘peace is a common ambition of mankind’. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was discovered that there was little interest in developing R2P. Some contend that ‘the links that the Declaration (i.e., UNGA Declaration on the Right of People to Peace 1984) seeks to create is methodologically flawed and does not add much to the educational or political aim’ (as stated in[37]). As a result, the Nordic Expert Consultation urged that the right to peace be properly defined as a communal or meta-right[38].

Given the above,the guarantees to peace should be researched  in diverse aspects. At the same time, nations, peoples, and individuals should be enshrined in the legal field as subjects of the law of the category under study. In general,the definition of peace should be seen as the absence of organized violence within a country and the adequate protection. The rights under investigation are positioned as an influential legal institution. Its content determines opportunities to live, work in harmony, and interact with other legal subjects.

According to Paupp[39], international peace implies two premises: first, free will - right and justice should reign over coercion. Second, on reality, the human world is not and will never be a place of just and complete justice, but man can attempt to make progress on the path to justice. Only the continuation of this unfettered search of justice is definite in existence. Everything is susceptible to revision: new realities emerge, new problems are asked, and tests are developed in public discussion and carried out in legal forms that can be revised in turn but are maintained inviolate for the lifetime of their validity.

According to Przetacznik[40], peace implies both internal tranquility in the state based on recognition and guarantee, and normal relations with other states based on mutual recognition and respect for each other’s rights and legitimate interests. The following conditions must therefore be met for a sense of peace to be considered true and just: (1) all people must be guaranteed the rights for the freedom, education, equality, employment, expression, religion, and the ability to leave and return to their own country, and each state must strictly uphold these rights; (2) Every state shall firmly prohibit any kind of internal or external persecution of people or groups, whether it is economic, political, ideological, or religious; (3) the right to self-determination must be guaranteed and rigorously enforced by all peoples and/or nations; and (4) foreign powers must not occupy, subjugate, or dominate other peoples or states.

All of these requirements must be met for a peace to be sincere, fair, and long-lasting. Without them, ruthless oppression arises from any peace that is imposed and maintained by brute force against the wills and wishes of peoples, countries, governments, and individuals. Such peace is seen as a source of and cause of oppressed nations’ and governments’ wars as well as the fight of individuals and peoples for their individual and collective human rights. The innate right to fight for one’s own rights to self-determination belongs to oppressed peoples, nations, and individuals.

The conditions for the priority of a true, just, and permanent peace are not met if any nation in the world, or any collection of nations, does not acknowledge and fully execute the rights, whether they be individual or collective.

One third-generation human right that has been recognized as being a new idea in the global life of human civilization is the right to peace[41]. The global community must work together and in solidarity to accomplish it. In addition to being a theoretical proposition, it is also closely related to and necessitates progress in the field of international law. It aims to provide a desirable path to synthesize new human aspirations.

As a third-generation human right, peace is the next stage in the fundamental concepts that govern that area of rights research. The subjective, objective, and implementational characteristics of a new human right create fundamental challenges for qualifying under the classic notion of human right. This raises the basic question of whether the guarantee to peace is defined and acknowledged as a human right. It is apparent that the preservation of values, which are the subject of solidarity rights, may be promoted more or less successfully outside of the traditionally defined framework of main rights; yet, there are grounds to link the right of solidarity with human rights.

Rights of the third-generation nature have not yet been comprehended as internationally recognized and codified into legally binding laws. While some researchers think that future codification of solidarity rights will be simpler than in the past, others have found unambiguous acknowledgment of international instruments, the most advanced of which is the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR)[42]. Both generations are not politically neutral because Western nations seem to refer to classical rights (human rights of first generation) and the communist state to social rights (human rights of second generation). The political significance of peace guarantees is significantly reduced, as they illustrate the basic conditions for social development. 

This right is considered both individual and communal rights. The topic of whether collective rights may be regarded as human rights is unclear. Kantians might argue that a priori rights extend, in addition to individuals, also to all national creatures, including collectives. Collective claims may have anti-individual rights implications since they are often society’s rebuttal against individual rights. The rights of the third generation, often referred to as solidarity rights, are linked to the group’s integration of efforts and shared reliance, or solidarity. Solidarity rights apply to individuals, local people, local and regional collectivities, and global human society. This multi-level idea is a reaction to the rights of synthesis. Thus, the dimension of implementation determines the diversity of subjective formulas.

The goal of the third-generation is to promote international principles. Peace, progress, and the environment cannot be preserved and protected alone through isolated solutions of national or regional domains. Their very essence suggests that deep and wide-ranging international cooperation driven by a strong sense of global solidarity is required. However, it assumes that countries would restrict their share of freedom in favor of mankind as a whole rather than giving up their sovereignty. Instead of unbridled state independence, the just and equitable international order suggests a balance between equality and freedom. Safeguarding these ideals in the third-generation human right is most likely a response to a lack of state activity. This strategy is more effective than earlier approaches since it was created in compliance with humanitarian law, and the guarantees to peace is acknowledged as one of the facets of a struggle to implement universal principles.

The coherence of positions, interests within diplomatic relations shapes peace policy at the global level[43], [44]. Against the backdrop of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the UN failed to demonstrate the proper effectiveness of its founding document – the Charter, Article 1 of which proclaims the primary purpose of the Organisation, which conveys active, practical support for the international concept of peaceful development[45]. Other organizations have also faced the issue of ineffective peacekeeping mechanisms. 

Given this, developing a model Code of International Sanctions is currently considered necessary. Such a code should determine the system of targeted punishment. The principle of peaceful coexistence provides the basis for the formation of relations based on the principles of democratic unity and consolidation. 

Among other conditions and principles for forming a system of guarantees for implementing the general guarantees to peace, a special function is assigned to developing the moral side of social activity. This requires, in turn, coherence and interconnection of the leading social regulators - morality, religion and law. The moral development of society implies the dynamics of striving to achieve the ideals of harmonious social development, including in the format of concrete implementation[46]. The religious component should guarantee the exclusion of potential risks of peace disruption based on religious disagreements and disputes.

The younger generation's assimilation of basic moral imperatives should have an appropriate religious justification. As a regulating educational influence on an individual's consciousness, morality affects human activity and is an expression of the interaction of various social institutions. Given the above, the right to peace in the socio-political environment is not only about the legal aspects of its realization. They also include aspects of the dynamics of social moral norms. Formal definitions do not regulate moral obligations. They are also not determined by any status. Moral norms involve generally accepted notions of general social solidarity, consensus, empathy and kindness.

Law is based primarily on formally determined statuses of social belonging, which serve as the basis for developing and implementing a strategically important system of rights. The lack of stability in the global dynamics in the context of peace is due to both imperfect legal mechanisms to ensure it and an unstable moral and social climate.

Differentiation of moral principles for solving global problems in the legal field leads to differentiation of approaches to definitions and legal interpretations. Global institutions have a social mission to integrate the system of guarantees of law and peace, which is determined, among other things, by the level of moral consciousness of the subjects of lawmaking and legal activity[47], [48]. 

The Treaty on the European Union defines the purpose of the European Community (Article 3), which is to maintain global peace and people’s well-being. The document stipulates that the priority is the standard security policy (Article 42). The European community has the right to apply several regulatory measures to guarantee international security and maintain peace.

Social guarantees are an important aspect of ensuring the human right to peace in times of geopolitical instability.  The latter include, first and foremost, the right to an adequate standard of living. The definition of adequacy, however, varies widely, depending on the country’s level of development.

The state should define and set minimum standards. Ensuring social rights involves the redistribution of wealth between segments of the population, the state guarantees disaster prevention, and ensuring that education, healthcare, and social security systems are accessible to the general population. Without an adequate level of implementation of social requirements by various institutions, it will not be possible to integrate the definition of social rights into the priority strategy of social development.  

In the context of combining different aspects of this process, active global integration processes require conceptualizing the development strategies of leading countries and international institutions. The main issue is not the legal definition of the right to peace, but its practical guarantees, which requires the development of effective strategies for implementation and protection and the corresponding transformation of the system of regulation of international human rights.

The worldwide solidarity necessitates international collaboration, a common interest, and collaborative action in order to sustain not just the fabric and existence of international society, but also to attain collective goals. The right to peace shares all measures employed to attain this global goal, because collaboration for maintaining international security is a fundamental requirement for exercising this right. If the right to peace is enshrined as a new human right, it will serve as a solid foundation for peace guarantees.  Its acceptance would also provide new fuel to the fight against violence and attitudes based on force, imposition, and gender inequality.

Conclusion

The study found that enacting the right to peace is a varied undertaking. In many respects, it is more than just a right; it is a value fashioned, developed, established, and conditioned by historical events.

The value of peace is consistently positioned as one of the defining categories of scientific, legal and philosophical discourse. A gradual transformation of its essence characterizes the modern evolution of this definition. 

The right to peace is fundamental in the third generation of human rights. It is predicated on assertions and expectations that human rights would be upheld in all national, regional, and international activities. Even though it is widely acknowledged that all human rights are interconnected, indivisible, and interdependent, it is important to consider the characteristics and extent of the guarantees to peace as the third generation of main human rights. It is required for acceptance as a distinct. International norms serve as the foundation for the third generation’s guarantees of peace. Currently, this is not considered the duty of one nation or area to maintain and safeguard peace, growth, and the environment. Their entire essence points to the necessity of extensive and deep international cooperation, driven by a strong feeling of global solidarity. However, this suggests that governments will restrict their portion of freedom for the benefit of all people without ceding sovereignty.

Existing geopolitical conflicts have demonstrated international legal institutions’ inability to ensure global peace adequately. Given the numerous potential ways to circumvent existing sanctions, the current sanctions policy is ineffective. There is a need to implement a reference International Sanctions Code that will guarantee the rigidity of sanctions policy and prevent the aggressor from using military methods to resolve conflicts.

The important values in the social sphere, particularly human health and safety, honor and dignity, can only be realized in peace. This requires early warning of military threats, ensuring national security guarantees and a high level of efficiency of relevant institutions. Strengthening the right to peace in the international environment requires ensuring a synergy of strategic vision and determination in the process of multi-level peace guarantees. The correctness of legislative regulation of regulatory processes determines the practical effectiveness of the system of global legal guarantees.