12/30 Human rights and unilateral coercive measures - Report of the Secretary-General

GE.09-14465 (E) 080709

UNITED NATIONS

A

General Assembly Distr. GENERAL

A/HRC/12/30 3 July 2009

Original: ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Twelfth session Agenda item 3

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND REPORTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Human rights and unilateral coercive measures

Report of the Secretary-General

Introduction

1. The present report is submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 9/4, in which the Council requested the Secretary-General to seek the views and information of Member States on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations and to report thereon to the Council.

2. On 8 June 2009, the Secretary-General sent a note verbale to Member States seeking their views and information. As of 24 June 2009, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had received responses, summarized below, from the Governments of Belarus, Costa Rica, Iraq, Spain and Ukraine. The full text of the submissions is available from the Secretariat.

Responses from Governments

BELARUS

[Original: English] [11 June 2009]

3. The Government stated that Belarus took a position to reject unilateral coercive measures of an economic or political nature. It recognized that such measures contradicted the founding principles and norms of international law, and were unacceptable in the context of civilized international relations.

4. The Government called on the Human Rights Council not to lose sight of the problem of application of unilateral coercive measures and to react immediately to any unlawful actions by States that are contrary to international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

COSTA RICA

[Original: Spanish] [17 June 2009]

5. The Government indicated that Costa Rica, as a Member State of the World Trade Organization, respected and fulfilled the principles that govern the World Trade Organization, including the rejection of unilateral coercive economic measures. The Government further mentioned that, as a Member State of the United Nations, it respected international law, favoured the freedom of international trade and would endorse a limitation to such freedom only if it were imposed in accordance with international law and within the framework of the United Nations or the World Trade Organization.

IRAQ [Original: Arabic] [17 June 2009]

6. The Government recalled that article 32 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974 provides that no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights.

7. In this context, the Government reported difficulties faced by Iraq since the fall of the previous regime. It stated that Iraq had suffered unilateral coercive measures imposed by some neighbouring countries, including the smuggling of people into Iraq, the encroachment upon the waters of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, the dumping of toxic industrial waste, and the forced deportation of Iraqi refugees. The Government also expressed concern over Iraqi migrants in other countries who were facing poverty, child labour, prostitution, financial deprivation and forced deportation.

8. The Government is committed to taking legislative and administrative measures in accordance with international human rights law and to concluding international treaties with its neighbouring countries to confront and curb unilateral coercive measures.

SPAIN

[Original: Spanish] [24 June 2009]

9. The Government indicated that, as of the date of the response, no State was using or fomenting the use of unilateral coercive measures of an economic, political or any other nature against Spain.

UKRAINE

[Original: English] [23 June 2009]

10. The Government reaffirmed that it did not have any legislation or regulations regarding extraterritorial effects that could affect the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate interests of entities under their jurisdiction, or the freedom of trade. It further stated that it did not accept the application of unilateral coercive measures and that it adhered to the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and the freedom of trade in its relation with other States.

-----