A/79/182 18. It is on the basis of such broader understandings that the present report offers an examination of how freedom of religion or belief contributes to peace. III. Religion, peace and conflict 19. The need to advance peace and promote freedom of religion or belief in parallel, as integral to one another, is recognized in numerous instruments, including the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, 21 the Declaration on the Right to Peace of 2016 22 and the Beirut Declaration on Faith for Rights of 2017. 23 20. Those instruments recognize that peace should be based on respect for freedom of religion or belief and respect for diversity of religions and beliefs. They also recognize the realization of the rights of religious or belief minorities as contributing “to the strengthening of friendship, cooperation and peace among peoples and States”. 24 The positive relationship between peace and freedom of religion or belief is contingent, however. In those instruments, it is asserted that freedom of religion or belief “should” contribute to attaining world peace and that religion or belief “should not” be used or abused for ends inconsistent with the Charter, and therefore with peace. 21. Much research has focused on the question of the relationship between religion and peace. Regarding whether religion contributes to war or peace, it has long been recognized that religion is “ambivalent” on this question. 25 “[N]either religion nor religious militancy is per se a source of deadly conflict”; in fact, “the nonviolent ‘warrior for peace’ could be more influential in the long run than the religious extremist”. 26 It is observed that religion is neither inherently “dangerous” nor “harmful” and that, in fact, “violence is the exception when it comes to faith traditions”. 27 22. Despite, and in fact because of, its ambivalence, “religion allows political actors to utilize it as a legitimizing force when carrying out campaigns of aggression”, 28 organized violence and war, whether by State or non-State actors. When religion has served as such a legitimizing force, it has largely been in conjunction with “socioeconomic and political factors that contribute to the decision to resort to violence”. 29 23. The factors that “lead to using religion as a justification for conflict” 30 may be external to the religious community concerned and/or linked to factors internal to the related religious leaders, interests and communities. __________________ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 6/22 General Assembly resolution 36/55, preambular para. 5. General Assembly resolution 71/189, thirty-fourth preambular para. A/HRC/40/58, annex I, para. 7, and annex II; see also #Faith4Rights toolkit, p. 10, available at www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Press/faith4rights-toolkit.pdf. General Assembly resolution 71/189, thirty-fourth preambular para. R. Scott Appleby, “Religion and global affairs: religious ‘militants for peace’”, SAIS Review, vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer–Fall 1998). See also Erin Wilson, Religion and World Politics: Connecting Theory with Practice (Routledge, 2023). Monica Duffy Toft, “Religion, terrorism and civil wars” in Rethinking Religion and World Affairs, Timothy Shah, Alfred Stepan and Monica Duffy Toft, eds. (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 127. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 142. Ibid. 24-13239