Pretty interested in what will happen to the right to peace concept as it moves forward. Is this the ultimate in promising people a right to things they can't actually have? Is it like a "right to health," (which, I often point out, is not really what is being promised when people talk more about a right to health care). Rights are often aspirational, such as a right to education, which can't be immediately guaranteed in most places but should be worked towards. A "right to peace" might be put in that category. It might also be said to involve a host of other rights which can be achieved: democracy (based on the notion that democracies don't go to war with each other); bodily integrity; religious freedom; and so forth. If its a UN document, it also fits well with the UN's overall goal of promoting international peace; maybe its mostly a way to further sanctify other UN goals. On the other hand, it might become something of a laughing-stock, proof that the word "right" has been tossed around so much that its become unmoored from its intended meaning. I hope not, and it seems like it can be deployed in a way that keeps its importance while avoiding seeming like a joke of some sort.