Reframing the Right to Peace: Challenges and Future Perspectives – Jun Sasamoto

The following article was published in the January 2026 issue of the International Review of Contemporary Law, the journal of the IADL, focusing on the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter.

Reframing the Right to Peace: Challenges and Future Perspectives
Jun Sasamoto     

Abstract

This article re-evaluates the right to peace as a normative framework capable of transforming state-centered security into human-centered security. Drawing on the author’s doctoral research on UN Human Rights Council deliberations leading to the 2016 UN Declaration on the Right to Peace, it situates the right within security theory and human security. The paper shows that UN debates were marked by contestation over individual versus collective rights, self-defense, and disarmament, resulting in a declaration limited to an individual right. It argues that this limitation reduces the right’s transformative potential in addressing imperialism, militarization, and structural violence. Reframing the right to peace through Global South, anti-imperialist, and non-aligned movements, the article conceptualizes it as a post-imperial norm and demonstrates, through domestic court cases, its capacity to constrain militarized security policies.

Introduction

The right to peace seeks to transcend state-centered conceptions of security and instead pursue human-centered security in the face of political realities that prioritize peace through force and the security of states. In my doctoral dissertation in January 2025, I examined the significance of the right to peace within security theory by analyzing the deliberations of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

However, the right to peace remains merely soft law adopted by the United Nations, and many of its normative components are still ambiguous. Whether the creation of such a right can meaningfully contribute to an international society where the use of force remains pervasive is still an open question. My dissertation primarily analyzed the 2016 UN Declaration on the Right to Peace and assessed its implications, but in light of contemporary global challenges, this paper critically re-examines the 2016 declaration and explores possibilities for reframing and further developing the right to peace.

In this article, I draw upon the findings of my dissertation, “The Impact of the Right to Peace on Security seen in the Deliberations in the United Nations,” and, with an eye toward the realities of contemporary international politics, identify the challenges involved in repositioning the right to peace in relation to anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, anti-fascist, non-aligned, and Global South movements. The right to peace is a new normative language designed to constrain state violence and safeguard the security of peoples. It is not merely a component of human rights; it has the potential to become a foundational right capable of reconstructing the international order.

I. Significance of the Right to Peace in Light of Deliberations within the United Nations

My doctoral dissertation positioned the Right to Peace as a right that enables individuals to legally approach—and potentially place constraints on—the state’s traditionally monopolized domains of military force and security. Its aim was to clarify the theoretical significance of this right within security studies.

Although previous scholarship generally treated the right to peace as a matter of human rights, systematic analyses from the perspective of security theory were scarce. This research therefore, situates the right to peace within the theoretical framework of human security, which shares the common objective of “freedom from fear,” and analyzes the deliberative process leading up to the adoption of the 2016 UN Declaration on the Right to Peace to elucidate its relevance for security theory.

1-1 Genealogy of Security Theory

Security theory is broadly divided into the state-centered concept of national security and the emancipatory orientation of critical security studies. Critical security theory (e.g., Ken Booth) sought not only to develop human security as a policy concept but to reconstruct the theoretical foundations of the relationship between the state and the individual. Because human security was proposed in 1994 within the UN as a policy initiative, it enumerated various forms of human insecurity but did not theoretically clarify the relationship between the state and individuals (as noted by Edward Newman).

Accordingly, this dissertation identified three unresolved theoretical issues within human security studies:

1. the security implications of the right to peace as an individual right;
2. whether the concept encompasses rights addressing structural conditions; and
3. whether the right to peace can transcend the framework of national security.

The dissertation examines these theoretical problems through an analysis of the UN deliberations on the Right to Peace.

1-2 Historical Development of the Right to Peace

Until the late nineteenth century, war and peace were exclusive prerogatives of states, and individual suffering was not incorporated into the international legal system. However, beginning with the 1898 Hague Peace Conference, the concept of humanity emerged as a normative limit on the state’s war-making authority. This conference also marked the first formal international debate on what would become international humanitarian law.

The 1945 UN Charter articulated respect for human rights as a foundational principle, and subsequent development of international human rights treaties affirmed the “interdependence of human rights and peace.” It was within this historical trajectory that the right to peace became an agenda item within the United Nations.

1-3 Analytical Framework—Norm Theory and Constructivism

The analysis of UN deliberations in this study draws on constructivist norm research, specifically approaches that emphasize the role of contestation in the formation and evolution of norms.

Rather than focusing solely on the final adopted text, the research adopts an analytical framework that highlights the processes of learning and sharing normative meanings during deliberation. The criteria for analysis were:

1. the extent to which actors recognized the formation of normative meaning through contestation; and
2. the extent to which shared understandings emerged as a result.

The study also examines the role of norm entrepreneurs in norm formation—particularly NGOs such as the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law (SSIHL)—and evaluates the degree to which their proposed themes and concerns were reflected in the UN agenda.

1-4 Analysis of Deliberations within the UN Human Rights Council

The eight years of deliberation (2008–2016) within the Human Rights Council revealed three principal areas of contestation:

First, whether the right to peace should be considered a collective right of peoples or an individual right.

The Advisory Committee initially proposed a collective right with an individual dimension, but governmental negotiations ultimately failed to reach consensus on collective rights, resulting in agreement only on an individual-rights formulation. NGOs emphasized the individual—human rights-based—dimension of the right to peace, shaping the UN debate.

Second, the relationship between the right to self-defense and the right to peace.

The United States opposed the recognition of a right to peace on the grounds that it could potentially restrict the exercise of the right of self-defense. Interpreting these statements in reverse, however, suggests that even when the use of force is lawful under Article 51, the right to peace could still function to limit the exercise of self-defense. Supporting states voted in favor of adoption while fully aware of this possible limitation.

Third, the relationship between the right to peace and existing disarmament regimes.
Opposing states argued that disarmament should remain within the framework of existing institutions and treaties.

Statement by the Representative of the United States

“There are United Nations bodies and subsidiary organs that deal with disarmament issues—the Conference on Disarmament, the IAEA, the First Committee of the General Assembly, the UN Disarmament Commission, and the Security Council.

The draft declaration on the right to peace appears to interfere with the work carried out by these entities.

The approach taken in the draft risks creating confusion in the field of disarmament and could undermine the effectiveness of ongoing efforts pursued through bilateral approaches.”

Supporting states, however, endorsed the creation of a new right while recognizing that the right to peace could impose certain constraints upon such mechanisms and institutions.

1-5 Shared Normative Meanings and Theoretical Significance for Security Studies

The deliberations culminating in the 2016 UN Declaration on the Right to Peace produced a structural shift: individuals can now participate—through the exercise of rights—in a domain previously monopolized by the state. As a means of realizing human security, centered on “freedom from fear,” this framework offers a normative and institutional response to the emancipatory goals of critical security theory, even if expressed in abstract language.

By establishing the right to peace as an individual right, implementation becomes possible through UN Special Rapporteurs, working groups, future treaty-making processes, and individual communications procedures. At the domestic level, the constitutions and national laws will explicitly incorporate the right to peace, opening pathways for judicial review of violations of the right to peace.

The right also enables challenges to structural systems that produce human insecurity, potentially overcoming the “institutional dependency” inherent in human security frameworks. Regarding the relationship between national security and human security, the right to peace provides a theoretical basis for prioritizing the latter over the former in situations where they conflict. Judicial decisions in Japan and South Korea—such as those concerning U.S. military bases or the deployment of forces to Iraq—cite violations of the “right to live in peace,” demonstrating practical cases where human security could override state-centered security. A Costa Rican judgment also found nuclear-related legislation unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the right to peace.

1-6 Academic contributions

Through this analysis, the dissertation positions the right to peace as a legal form through which human security can be realized as an individual right. Its core contribution lies in institutionalizing the relationship between individuals and the state as one of rights and obligations, thereby opening possibilities for ensuring human security beyond the limits of national security.

The right to peace is conceptualized as a modality through which individuals can influence existing orders and institutions, offering a theoretical and practical framework for transcending state-centered security. By elucidating the process through which normative meanings were learned and shared through contestation, the dissertation advances a theoretical horizon for the right to peace—one that addresses the gap in human security theory concerning the “theorization of security”—and thereby constitutes a significant scholarly contribution.

II. Reframing the Right to Peace in the Context of Anti-Imperialism, Decolonization, Anti-Fascism, Non-Alignment, and Global South Movements

2-1 Limitations of the 2016 UN Declaration

In my doctoral dissertation, The Impact of the Right to Peace on Security seen in the Deliberations in the United Nations (2025), the primary focus of analysis was the declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2016. The right to peace endorsed at that time was limited to an individual right to peace; the collective dimension—the right of peoples to peace—strongly opposed by Western states, was excluded from the final text. As a result, the 2016 declaration made almost no progress with respect to collective rights.

Because the 2016 declaration was negotiated through a consensus-seeking procedure, most of its final content was confined to what had historically been accepted within the UN. Thus, perspectives central to the 1978 and 1984 declarations—such as resistance to the arms race and concrete disarmament provisions—were not carried over into the 2016 text.

However, contemporary struggles—global movements opposing U.S. imperialism, transnational mobilizations within the Global South, and resistance against military alliances—cannot be adequately addressed by a right to peace solely as an individual right. If the right to peace is interpreted only as an individual remedial right, it risks being reduced to a mechanism of personal relief, making it difficult to develop it into a legal tool capable of transforming the institutional structures of security.

For this reason, it is necessary to reconsider the development of a collective, peoples-based right to peace. Nonetheless, the 2016 deliberations did reveal important conceptual points that apply to both individual and collective formulations of the right to peace: namely, the articulation of rights against structural sources of violence and the possibility of transcending the framework of state-centered national security.

When considering the collective right to peace, it is also essential to recognize developments outside the United Nations. UN declarations are state-driven international instruments adopted by government representatives. Yet rights also function as social norms embedded in societal movements. Declarations issued by NGOs—such as the 1976 Algiers Declaration, the 1998 Asian Human Rights Charter, and the 2010 Santiago Declaration—together with the 1986 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, not only influenced UN deliberations but also played concrete roles within anti-imperialist, decolonial, and social justice struggles.

Within the UN system, state interests, diplomatic compromises, and past consensus norms constrain outcomes. Thus, collective formulations of the right to peace may not be adopted—even if they reflect the demands of peoples and movements. Furthermore, even when such rights are recognized at the UN level, they do not necessarily correspond directly to the aspirations of Global South states and communities engaged in anti-imperialist and decolonial struggles.

Indeed, major Global South initiatives such as the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development and the 2018 UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants were adopted without consensus, due to opposition from Western states.Therefore, it is necessary to advance both dimensions of the right to peace—its individual and collective forms—and to further develop the right as a social norm embodied in peoples’ struggles.

In particular, given the realities of contemporary warfare, mass atrocities, and violent conflict, this paper aims to re-conceptualize the right to peace within the broader currents of anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-fascism, non-alignment, and Global South solidarity. Its goal is to articulate the right to peace as a “post-imperial norm” capable of contributing to the reconstruction of the international order in the twenty-first century.

2-2 The Three UN Declarations on the Right to Peace and the Rights of Peoples

The 1978, 1984, and 2016 UN declarations each emerged from distinct historical contexts and embody different normative significances.

The 1978 Declaration: Anti-Imperialist Orientation

The 1978 Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace was adopted by 138 votes in favor, with socialist countries such as Poland and many Global South states playing central roles.

During the 1970s, détente between the United States and the Soviet Union was beginning to unravel, and the arms race between NATO and the Warsaw Pact—including the expansion of intermediate-range nuclear forces—was escalating. The 1978 declaration referred to the need to eliminate the threat of the arms race (para. 6).

At the same time, the decade witnessed the deepening of the Bandung-inspired Non-Aligned Movement, demands for a New International Economic Order (NIEO, 1974), and other anti-imperialist initiatives. The 1976 Algiers Declaration of the Rights of Peoples, adopted by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, affirmed the right of peoples to self-determination (Art. 5), using “peoples” in the sense of holders of the right to self-determination. Within this environment, debates in the UN Human Rights Commission during the 1970s culminated in the 1978 UN declaration.

The 1984 Declaration: Emphasis on Collective Rights

The 1984 declaration explicitly framed the right to peace as a right of peoples, thereby identifying peoples as the rights-holders and seeking to establish a political foundation that would constrain the legalization of the use of force. Led by socialist states such as Mongolia, the declaration was adopted with 92 votes in favor, largely supported by Global South countries; 34 mainly Western states abstained.

The 1984 context included: the peak of the nuclear war crisis (NATO–INF deployment, the SDI initiative), the convening of the UN Special Session on Disarmament, strong political mobilization by non-aligned and Global South states, resistance to imperialism and colonialism (South Africa, Palestine, Latin America), and the emergence of third-generation “solidarity rights.” Although the text of the 1984 declaration is abstract, UN deliberations emphasized state obligations to respond to the escalating global crises.

The 2016 Declaration: Substantive Debates on Individual Rights

After 1984, the Cold War ended, and the United States—now possessing overwhelming military dominance—initiated unilateral interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO conducted humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and Libya, and major-power military action was justified under the “responsibility to protect.” At the same time, with the end of the Cold War, development issues such as the MDGs and SDGs came to the fore, and the concept of human security was introduced. Yet tensions between the Global South and Western states became more pronounced.

Deliberations on the right to peace began in the Human Rights Council in 2008, led by Cuba and Latin American states (CELAC), with NGOs heavily involved in drafting proposals. The negotiations culminated in the adoption of the declaration by 131 votes, primarily from the Global South.

The three declarations—1978, 1984, and 2016—emerged from distinct historical contexts and embody different normative orientations. To make the right to peace socially effective, these contextual features must be meaningfully integrated.

Since the adoption of the 2016 declaration, the world has witnessed Russia’s war against Ukraine, Israel’s genocide in Gaza, attacks on Iran, and repeated violations of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. Military tensions have also intensified through the strengthening of alliances and military exercises across Asia and Europe.

The key question is: How can the right to peace respond to these contemporary realities?

Since the 1970s, Global South states and NGOs have advanced the right to peace within the UN. In contrast, Western states have consistently argued that “security is the responsibility of states, and peace should be an aspiration, not a right of individuals or peoples,” thereby opposing the recognition of peace as a right.

Here we see the normative meaning of the right to peace.

It is crucial to note that the “Western states” opposing the right to peace do not include Russia or China, but rather the former colonial powers and imperial states aligned with the United States—European countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia—states bound by U.S. military alliances. These Western states, historically engaged in colonial domination and post-war military interventions, refused to accept the creation of a right to peace because it would impose obligations beyond existing international norms, potentially limiting their freedom of military action. They feared that individuals and peoples, as rights-holders, could invoke the right to peace to restrict state power.

Meanwhile, after decolonization and the global expansion of human rights awareness, peoples and individuals increasingly recognized themselves as subjects of rights. For many Global South states, the struggle to achieve self-determination and independence reaffirmed the value of the right to peace and generated the conviction that questions of peace and security should not remain the exclusive prerogative of states—which often serve as the locus of imperialist or fascist violence. Thus emerged the normative project of constructing state obligations corresponding to individual and peoples’ rights to peace.

UN deliberations on the right to peace represent a confrontation between the Global South and Western states led by the United States—a struggle that can be understood as a contest over the democratization of security. Likewise, the post–Cold War transformation from national security to human security can be read as a process through which the right to peace challenges the state’s monopoly over the domain of security.

2-3 Peoples’ Rights and Collective Rights

The right to peace also contains a collective dimension, most clearly articulated in the 1984 declaration as the right of peoples to peace.

During the negotiations for the 2016 declaration, some states argued in the Working Group that the 1984 formulation of “peoples’ rights” represented rights of states vis-à-vis other states rather than human rights, and therefore, collective rights were excluded from the final 2016 text.

However, “peoples’ rights” possess multiple meanings beyond the state-centric interpretation advanced by socialist states during the Cold War. The term peoples may refer to:

• the entire population of a state as the holder of the right to self-determination (common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR);
• cultural or ethnic communities, as in the rights of indigenous peoples; and
• all oppressed groups, as articulated in the 1976 Algiers Declaration.

Thus, the concept of peoples is diverse and context-dependent.
In the field of peace and security, the most significant articulation of peoples’ rights is found in the 1976 Algiers Declaration.

The Algiers Declaration was drafted by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, established as a mechanism for peoples excluded from traditional state-centered international law to articulate their rights. Rooted in the decolonization struggles of Asia and Africa (Bandung Conference 1955, Non-Aligned Movement), as well as resistance to imperialist interventions in Vietnam (until 1975), Chile (1973), Palestine (1967), and elsewhere, the declaration rejected traditional international law’s exclusive reliance on state sovereignty and territorial integrity. It asserted instead a new framework in which peoples of the Global South are recognized as genuine subjects of international law.

The Algiers Declaration begins with a preambular assertion that:

“The struggles of liberation have aroused the peoples of the world against the internal and international structures of imperialism and have overthrown colonial regimes — an era of struggle and victory in which new ideals of justice within states and among states have been adopted — and an era in which the United Nations General Assembly, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, has clearly expressed the pursuit of a new international, political, and economic order.”

Here, the declaration situates itself explicitly within the historical moment in which peoples overthrew colonial domination.

It then codifies substantive rights, including:

• the right of peoples to existence (Art. 1),
• the right of peoples to maintain their territory in peace (Art. 3),
• the inalienable right to self-determination (Art. 5), and
• the right to liberation from colonial or foreign domination (Art. 6).

Unlike the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—which did not reflect the voices of peoples still under colonial rule—the Algiers Declaration foregrounded collective rights and demanded the democratic transformation of international law. Whereas the 1948 declaration centered on “individual rights,” the Algiers Declaration centered on “the rights of peoples.”

This intellectual lineage continued in the 1986 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and influenced subsequent UN documents such as the 1978 and 1984 peace declarations and the Declaration on the Right to Development.

2-4 Contemporary Manifestations of U.S. Imperialism and the Right to Peace

(1) Imperialism in Galtung’s Framework

Johan Galtung theorized imperialism not merely as military or political domination, but as a form of structural violence, offering a new conceptual framework for peace studies. Galtung (1971) defined the structure of imperialism as a violent system maintained through unequal exchange relations between the center (core) and the periphery. The UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee also invoked Galtung’s concepts of positive peace and structural violence in its progress report for the 2016 Declaration (progress report A/HRC/17/39).

Galtung identified five types of imperialism, which interact to form a global structure of domination:

1. Economic imperialism – domination through trade, aid, and investment
2. Political imperialism – subordination of political systems
3. Military imperialism – alliances, overseas bases, arms transfers
4. Communication imperialism – control of information and media
5. Cultural imperialism – imposition of language, education, and value systems

The Preamble and Article 1 of the UN Charter designate “the maintenance of international peace and security” as a core purpose of the UN, yet historically this responsibility has been entrusted to states. In practice, however, powerful economic and military states—particularly imperial powers—have frequently used force in violation of international law.

Thus, when decisions about the use of force are left entirely to states, the perspectives of individuals and peoples are marginalized, and legal constraints remain insufficient.

The emergence of the right to peace offers a legal innovation by shifting the subject of peace from the state to individuals and peoples, transforming the traditional state-centric system of sovereignty. As demonstrated in my doctoral dissertation, the right to peace functions as a legal tool enabling the transition from state security to human security. At times, it allows human values to prevail over state-centered security considerations.

(2) Contemporary Forms of Imperialism

Here, I identify the contemporary manifestations of imperialism, the most prominent being U.S. imperialism, which exhibits all five elements enumerated by Galtung.

1. Economic imperialism – domination through trade, aid, and investment
   Recent examples include President Trump’s coercive tariff negotiations, using economic and military asymmetry to impose political objectives. U.S. dominance over the global economic structure through the World Bank and IMF also belongs to this category. These mechanisms force peripheral states into compliance with imperial economic power.
2. Political imperialism – subordination of political systems
   Although not limited to the United States, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council wield veto power, dominating the UN Charter system.
3. Military imperialism – alliances, bases, arms transfers
   The United States maintains global dominance through NATO, the U.S.–Japan–ROK alliance, and a vast network of overseas bases, imposing military subordination on host and threat to adversary states alike.

Behind this lies the immense military–industrial complex, which perpetuates international conflict and makes war appear inevitable.
In the Ukraine war, NATO’s eastward expansion served as a trigger, and although weapons were supplied, direct involvement was avoided, rendering the conflict a proxy war.
In East Asia, the U.S. fuels confrontation between China and Taiwan.
In Israel’s assault on Gaza, the U.S. supports Israel militarily and thereby contributes to genocide.
The U.S. maintains around 800 overseas bases, a scale unmatched by any other major power.

4. Communication imperialism – control over information and media

Since World War II, the United States has engaged in intelligence and covert operations through the CIA and, more recently, through institutions such as the NED to intervene in other countries’ domestic affairs. These efforts have included orchestrating the overthrow of uncooperative governments, coups, or mass unrest (e.g., Ukraine, Nepal).
Western media dominance reinforces narratives such as the “China threat” or “Russia threat,” shaping public opinion through propaganda.

5. Cultural imperialism – domination through language, education, and value systems

U.S. cultural influence permeates global society, including customs, holidays, sports, and lifestyle, embedding American norms into daily life around the world.

(3) Anti-Imperialism and the Right to Peace

How, then, can the right to peace be utilized in struggles against imperialism?

The 1976 Algiers Declaration on the Rights of Peoples states:

“Imperialism continues to develop new forms of oppression and exploitation of the peoples of the world. Often with the complicity of governments installed by itself, imperialism continues to dominate parts of the world through violent means. Through direct or indirect intervention, multinational corporations, manipulation of corrupt local politicians, support for military regimes based on police repression, torture, and elimination of opposition, and through a set of practices known as ‘neocolonialism,’ imperialism tightens its grip over many peoples.”

The declaration sees imperialism as neocolonialism, and also affirms:

• the right of peoples to maintain their territory in peace (Art. 3),
• the right to self-determination (Art. 5), and
• the right to free themselves from colonial or foreign domination (Art. 6).

If the spirit of the Algiers Declaration is applied to the right to peace, one can conceptualize freedom from militarization, occupation, and foreign military bases as essential components of the right to peace for individuals and peoples.

UN advisory committee draft clarifies the right to live in a world free of nuclear weapons(Art. 3-3), and NGO Santiago Declaration (2010) included the right to live in a world free of foreign military bases (Art. 7-1). And from the perspective of U.S. imperial practices, the right to peace could also be understood as: the right to be free from foreign interference, and the right to reject military occupation.

2-5 The Right to Self-Determination, Decolonization, and the Right to Peace

(1) The Right to Self-Determination and the Right to Peace

The legal expression of struggles to escape oppression and exploitation is the right to self-determination. In international law, this right appears in Common Article 1 of the two International Covenants on Human Rights.
Self-determination includes both:

• the right of colonized peoples to resist domination by the suzerain power, and
• the right of peoples under foreign occupation (as in Palestine/Gaza) to liberate themselves.

Article 6 of the Algiers Declaration states:

“All peoples have the right to break free from any colonial or foreign domination, direct or indirect, and from any racist regime.”

Similarly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides:

• Article 19: rejection of domination by other nations;
• Article 20(1): the right to existence and self-determination;
• Article 20(2): the right to liberation from colonization;
• Article 20(3): the right to receive support in struggles against foreign domination.

(2) Decolonization and the Right to Peace

The 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples declares in Article 1:

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.”

Thus, colonialism is identified as an obstacle to world peace.

Colonial rule often imposed foreign military bases and military cooperation agreements on colonized territories. These bases then became sites of military conflict, and were used to maintain foreign control.

Article 2 of the same 1960 declaration affirms the right of all peoples to self-determination. Conditions in which the right to self-determination is denied, and peoples are held under colonial or foreign occupation, cannot be considered peaceful. Consequently, the denial of self-determination and the persistence of colonial structures are fundamentally incompatible with peace. Peace is not merely the absence of inter-state war; it is inseparable from peoples’ self-determination and liberation from colonial rule.

This understanding shaped developments such as:

• the incorporation of right to self-determination into the 1966 UN human rights covenants,
• the 1976 Algiers Declaration on the Rights of Peoples, and
• the 1978 and 1984 UN declarations on the right to peace.

(3) Right of Peoples to Peace in the Context of Self-Determination and Decolonization

Another reason the right to peace should be framed as a right of peoples is that the establishment of foreign military bases and occupation forces directly violates the rights of the affected peoples.

In the case of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, the construction of a U.S. military base in the 1970s led to the forced removal of the indigenous Chagossian people. Although the island—originally a British colony—was returned to Mauritius in 2025 as part of decolonization, the UK subsequently secured a 99-year agreement allowing the continued operation of the U.S. base. This is a paradigmatic example of how imperialist militarization undermines the right of peoples to peace.

The construction of U.S. military bases deprives indigenous peoples of residence, creates environmental and social harms, and violates their collective rights.
The NGO Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace (2010) explicitly recognizes the right of individuals and peoples “not to allow foreign military bases” (Art. 7(1)). Broader formulations would include: the right of local populations to refuse military bases without their consent.

2-6 The Global South, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Right to Peace

(1) The Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) traces its origins to the 1955 Bandung Conference, followed by the 1961 Belgrade Summit, and subsequent NAM summits.

The goals of NAM were to:

• reject subordination to either the U.S. or Soviet blocs during the Cold War,
• oppose colonialism and imperialism, and
• pursue a “third way” independent of military alliances.

The 1961 Belgrade Declaration affirmed that world peace can be achieved only when imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism are abolished.

The concept of the right to peace can be understood as an attempt to translate this spirit of non-alignment into the language of modern international human rights law. NAM’s multilateral posture offers a counterweight to NATO, the U.S.–Japan–ROK military alliance, and unilateralism. Walden Bello describes the 1955 Bandung Conference as a “mythic moment of the Global South,” and depicts the subsequent seventy years of South–South solidarity—from NAM, G77, and UNCTAD through the NIEO and today’s BRICS—as a “long march”.

(2) Global South Movements and the Right to Peace

All three UN declarations on the right to peace (1978, 1984, 2016) were championed by NAM states, CELAC, and G77 countries, while Western states abstained or opposed them. This demonstrates that the movement for the right to peace is fundamentally a project of a decolonial international order.

The Bandung Conference’s emphasis on peaceful dispute settlement and fidelity to the UN Charter resonates strongly with the right to peace. For the Global South, the right to peace provides a theoretical, practical, and legal foundation for resisting imperialist and colonial domination.

The movements of the Global South and the “Right to Peace” are not merely parallel phenomena; they are mutually constitutive normative movements that have shaped each other. However, as Walden Bello notes, the institutionalization of the Bandung spirit has often produced contradictions, as state-led initiatives sometimes diverged from the anti-imperialist and people-centered ideals. Some Global South governments have themselves adopted repressive policies against their own peoples. Thus, the right to peace must also be grounded in peoples’ movements, not solely in state-led diplomacy.

2-7 Anti-Fascism and the Right to Peace

The right to peace stands within the broader lineage of the post–World War II anti-fascist international order. Fascism legitimizes exclusion, surveillance, and violence under the pretext of “security.” According to Buzan et al. (1998), securitization is the process by which political issues are framed as existential threats, thereby justifying emergency measures and exceptional powers. State repression justified in the name of “national security” is a hallmark of fascism.
The right to peace—whose core includes structural peace and “freedom from fear”—directly challenges such repression. Ensuring the right to live in peace against authoritarian governments becomes central in this context.

In fact, the UN Advisory Committee’s draft for the 2016 declaration incorporated a provision (Article 7) recognizing the right to resist and oppose oppression, linking the right to peace with anti-fascist principles.

2-8 Japan’s Constitutional “Right to Live in Peace” and the Right to Peace

The Preamble of the Japanese Constitution (enacted in 1946) declares that “all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.” This right to live in peace represents a pioneering expression of what is now called the international right to peace; the ideal form of that right appeared in the Japanese Constitution even before its articulation in international law.

Although the Japanese government opposed the creation of the right to peace at the United Nations as part of the Western bloc, at the level of civil society and local communities, lawsuits have been brought invoking the constitutional right to live in peace, producing significant results. Similar litigation has occurred in South Korea and Costa Rica.

When missiles were deployed at a Self-Defense Force base in Japan, local residents sued on the grounds that their right to live in peace was being violated. In a 1973 decision, the court recognized standing by interpreting the right to live in peace as including the right not to be attacked by an enemy state. Likewise, in a lawsuit challenging the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War, a 2008 decision recognized the right to live in peace as a legal right protecting citizens from being compelled to participate indirectly in acts of war.

In South Korea, courts have also recognized the right of residents near U.S. military bases to live in peace. In a 2006 decision, the Korean Constitutional Court held that individuals have a right to live peacefully without being drawn into armed conflict or violence, and to be free from war and terrorism—rights that fall under the constitutional right to live in peace.

In Costa Rica, a 2008 Constitutional Chamber decision held that regulations allowing the production of nuclear fuel and reactors violated the value of peace and the right to peace because such technologies could be linked to acts of war.

These cases from Japan, South Korea, and Costa Rica demonstrate that military and defense activities justified in the name of national security can be legally constrained through the right to peace understood as a human right. Thus, the constitutional right to live in peace can be exercised through courts and social movements.

By contrast, the right to peace is a broader, higher-order concept: a right of individuals, peoples, and humankind as a whole. It encompasses liberation from structural violence, imperialism, colonialism, environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, and all forms of broad-based violence—down to the individual right to live in peace.

The Santiago Declaration (2010) and the UN Advisory Committee draft operate from this broader understanding.

The right to peace and the right to live in peace should therefore be seen as mutually complementary. Each can reinforce the other as their substantive content evolves.

III       Challenges for Realizing the Right to Peace

Although the right to peace is universal in principle, it remains only a UN declaration and does not yet possess binding force in positive international law. Its future application by the ICJ or the Human Rights Council remains an open task. Contemporary violence is no longer limited to the use of force; it includes economic sanctions, cyberattacks, disinformation, and environmental destruction.

Lawsuits in Japan challenging the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces or the Iraq deployment were early efforts to question state military action based on the right to live in peace. Reinterpreting these cases within the framework of the international right to peace can reaffirm the global significance of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

Organizations such as the IADL and the other networks have developed the right to peace as a people-centered norm. Peoples serve as actors of “social international law” that complement inter-state politics, and their creativity is indispensable for the realization of the right to peace. The core of the right to peace is the transformation from fear-based state security to trust-based and solidarity-based human security.

Drawing on the author’s research, this paper has repositioned the right to peace in relation to anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, anti-fascist, non-aligned, and Global South movements. The right to peace is a new normative language that constrains state violence and secures the safety of peoples. It is not merely a subset of human rights but a foundational right capable of reconstructing the international order.

The key task ahead is to institutionalize the right to peace within international law and to recognize it as a concrete right within domestic constitutional orders. The right to peace serves as a normative compass guiding the way toward a world order beyond violence and domination.

IV        Reference (Order appeared in the paper)

Sasamoto, Jun. 2025. The Impact of the Right to Peace on Security Seen in the Deliberations in the United Nations. PhD diss., The University of Tokyo.

Booth, Ken. 1991. “Security and Emancipation.” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4: 313–326.

Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People. New York: Commission on Human Security.

Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Lisbeth Zimmermann. 2020. “Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms.” International Studies Review 22, no. 1: 51–76.

Falk, Richard. 1979. “The Algiers Declaration of the Rights of Peoples and the Struggle for Human Rights.” In UN Law: Fundamental Rights—Two Topics in International Law, edited by Antonio Cassese, 225–235. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4: 887–917.

Galtung, Johan. 1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 8, no. 2: 81–117.

Newman, Edward. 2010. “Critical Human Security Studies.” Review of International Studies 36, no. 1: 77–94.

Walden Bello. 2025. “The Long March from Bandung to the BRICS.” In 70th Anniversary of the Bandung Conference, 1–31.

Primary Documents / Declarations

• Advisory Committee of the United Nations Human Rights Council. 2012. Draft Declaration on the Right to Peace. UN Doc. A/HRC/20/31. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/20/31
• United Nations General Assembly. 2016. Declaration on the Right to Peace. UN Doc. A/RES/71/189. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/71/189
• Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law (AEDIDH). 2010. Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace. https://www.aedidh.org/sites/default/files/Santiago-Declaration-en.pdf
• Algiers Declaration: Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal. 1976. Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples,
  https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Carta-di-algeri-EN.pdf
• Bandung Conference (Asian-African Conference). 1955. Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference of Bandung,
  https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/final_communique_of_the_asian_african_conference_of_bandung_24_april_1955-en-676237bd-72f7-471f-949a-88b6ae513585.html
• Belgrade Declaration of Non-Aligned Movement. 1961.
  https://www.iri.edu.ar/publicaciones_iri/manual/Ultima-Tanda/Movimiento-paises-no-alineados/2.%20Belgrade_Declaration.pdf

 

 

 

All articles published in the International Review of Contemporary Law reflect only the position of their author and not the position of the journal, nor of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.