Let me try. Your question is an important one.
The trick there is to limit the definition of what we mean by “peace” and take the bearing of that definition from the war of aggression. There is a definition of a war of aggression in international law. You have it in the Rome Statute. In 1972, the UN adopted resolution 3314, which defines it. It already lays out what a war of aggression is, so we don't need to worry too much about that.
What we need to avoid is expanding the concept of peace so it scares people. For instance, this idea of the right to peace is not an entirely new one for me. What I'm saying now is that we have to make a convention, rather than just a mere declaration.
The difficulty all along has been that, when people wanted to talk about the right to expand it, everybody gets in and discrimination against minorities and ethnic groups is a violation of the right to peace. Discrimination against women is a violation of the right to peace and all of that. Once you have that, people now say that they already have difficulties with this at home and now we want to add something else to it.
We would bring it down to say that we are talking about a war of aggression and we limit it to that. The laws against discrimination have their own purposes in international law. Let's leave those to do their work. Let's limit what we're talking about here to when one country decides to conduct military or special military operations—or whatever you choose to call it or not call it—against another country that has not attacked it. That is a war of aggression, and it is an international crime.
That is what we're talking about when we're talking about the right to peace, rather than expanding it too much.