31/82 Outcome of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Thirty-first session

Agenda items 2 and 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

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Outcome of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

I. Introduction

1. The Human Rights Council held, pursuant to its resolution 27/21, its first biennial

panel discussion on the issue of unilateral coercive measures and human rights, on 17

September 2015. The panel discussion had initially been scheduled to be held during the

twenty-ninth session of the Council, but was postponed at the request of the sponsor States

of the Non-Aligned Movement until the thirtieth session, in accordance with the Council’s

programme of work.

2. The objective of the panel discussion was to increase awareness among all

stakeholders, including United Nations human rights mechanisms, of the negative impact

that unilateral coercive measures have on the enjoyment of human rights in targeted and

non-targeted countries. The panel sought to ensure a platform for the continuing exchange

of views and exchange of experiences among all stakeholders in relation to the impact of

unilateral coercive measures on human rights, especially of groups in a situation of

vulnerability; to follow up and give an update on the recommendations made at previous

workshops held in 2013 and 2014 (see A/HRC/24/20 and A/HRC/27/32) and the research-

based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (A/HRC/28/74); and to

build consensus on the development of basic principles and guidelines, as well as on the

identification of mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse impact of unilateral

coercive measures and to ensure accountability.

3. The panel discussion was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council and

moderated by the former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic

Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Seyed Mohammad Kazem

Sajjadpour. The panellists were the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights, Aslan Abashidze (Russian Federation); Associate Professor at

Suez Canal University, Mohamed Ezzeldine Abdel-Moneim (Egypt); and the Special

Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of

human rights, Idriss Jazairy.

4. After the opening statement, the moderator introduced the topic and defined the

scope of the discussion. The panellists subsequently made their initial statements, which

were followed by an interactive discussion chaired by the President of the Human Rights

Council. The discussion comprised two rounds of interventions by representatives of States,

observers and non-governmental organizations with comments and questions from the

floor, followed by comments and replies by panellists. The discussion concluded with final

responses from the panellists and concluding remarks by the moderator.

II. Opening of the panel discussion

5. The President of the Human Rights Council opened the panel discussion.

Welcoming remarks were then made on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), read out by the Chief of the Rule of Law,

Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch of OHCHR.

6. According to OHCHR, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called

upon States to refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law

and the Charter of the United Nations and that impedes the full realization of human rights,

in particular the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and

well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services. In

1997, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had considered the issue of

economic sanctions being imposed internationally, regionally and unilaterally. More

attention had to be paid to the impact of these measures on vulnerable groups, particularly

with regard to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, arguing for the need to

inject a human rights dimension into deliberations on this issue. The challenges highlighted

by the Committee included significant disruptions in the distribution of food,

pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies and clean drinking water, severely interfering with

the functioning of basic health and education systems, and undermining the right to work.

7. The mandate of the special procedure on examining the negative impact of unilateral

coercive measures, created by the Human Rights Council in 2014, had provided an

opportunity to consider the adverse implications of unilateral coercive measures on the

enjoyment of human rights. The biennial panel discussion would allow the Council to

discuss the various aspects of this debate, also with regard to whether there was a need to

develop basic principles, guidelines and mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse

impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.

III. Summary of the proceedings

8. During his initial remarks as moderator, Mr. Kazem Sajjadpour stated that sanctions

and unilateral measures were usually used against developing countries as an easy solution

for international disputes, in what seemed to be a “sanctions industry” in developed

countries that currently affects more than 90 countries. He drew attention to what he

described as the importance of assessing carefully the impact of these measures on the lives

of people. The impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights raises significant

questions that need to be addressed, including the legality, morality and legitimacy of such

measures. The possibility of legal remedy and redress for negative human rights

implications caused by unilateral coercive measures should be considered.

A. Contributions of panellists

9. The Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

Aslan Abashidze, affirmed that unilateral coercive measures lacked any legitimacy from the

viewpoint of contemporary international law. He drew an analogy with international

humanitarian law, where the issue of the legality of the use of force in international

relations is decided by international law: the use of force in violation of the dispositions of

the Charter of the United Nations is qualified as a crime against peace, with all the ensuing

international legal consequences. In that context, any attempt to present unilateral coercive

measures as not only legitimate but even permitted in exceptional cases goes against the

mandatory provisions of the Charter.

10. Mr. Abashidze argued that unilateral coercive measures taken by individual States or

regional associations violated the authority of the Security Council, as enshrined in Articles

39, 41 and 42 of the Charter, as well as Articles 103 and 53, which read that “no

enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies

without the authorization of the Security Council”. According to the General Assembly in

its resolution 2625 (XXV), unilateral coercive measures violated the principle of non-

interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States. Unilateral coercive measures taken

outside the framework of the Charter are not only illegal but also pose a threat to the

collective security system based on the principles and norms of contemporary international

law. Unilateral coercive economic measures applied with the objective of weakening or

destroying the competitiveness of the economies of targeted countries should also be

qualified as a violation of the mandates of the World Trade Organization.

11. The Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

described the wide awareness of global and regional human rights bodies that unilateral

coercive measures have a negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights; to that end, he

quoted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, resolutions of the General

Assembly and the Human Rights Council, general comment No. 8 of the Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and several other instruments and reports. Unilateral

coercive measures were also immoral because of their particularly negative effect on

marginalized populations, primarily in the social sphere of the countries targeted. An

example of this was a study by the American Association for World Health on Cuba, which

concluded that the blockade by the United States of America had had a considerably

negative impact on the country’s health-care system.

12. Mr. Abashidze argued that unilateral coercive measures taken outside the mandate

of the Security Council should be classified not as “forced” but “hostile” acts, aimed at

destabilizing the situation on a regional and a global scale. The measures were warfare by

non-military means, entailing large-scale negative consequences for international security,

and which should be more appropriately called “unilateral hostile measures”. As a result,

hiding the illegality and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures by their

designation with terms such as “smart” or “restrictive” was doubly immoral. Some

examples of “smart” measures that should rather be regarded as beyond any reasonableness

included the closure of the airspace for aircraft carrying humanitarian aid to the population

of the Syrian Arab Republic; the right to take the floor denied to Russian parliamentarians

before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; and the refusal by the States

belonging to the Group of Eight to discuss pressing international issues with the Russian

Federation.

13. According to Mr. Abashidze, the discussions ongoing in treaty bodies aimed at

creating monitoring mechanisms for unilateral coercive measures had no prospect for

success, given that some countries were not a party to some of the core human rights

treaties. In the light of the diametrically opposed views on this issue, reflected by the

decision by some States to vote against Human Rights Council draft resolution

A/HRC/27/L.2 (adopted as resolution 27/21), it had became necessary, first of all, to reach

a consensus on the illegality and adverse consequences of unilateral coercive measures. To

achieve this, States should build upon the experience of the Secretary-General, who

organized in 2003 a high-level panel discussion on the theme “Threats, challenges and

change” and presented a subsequent report in 2004 entitled “A more secure world: our

shared responsibility” (A/59/565). He advocated for a similar comprehensive report on

unilateral coercive measures and their real threat to the preservation of the system of

collective security of the Charter.

14. The Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on

the enjoyment of human rights welcomed the progress made recently in the implementation

of multiple United Nations resolutions on unilateral coercive measures, including those of

the General Assembly, specialized world conferences and the Human Rights Council.

There has been some positive developments, such as the transition from comprehensive to

targeted unilateral coercive measures (although it was sometimes difficult to draw a line

between them); the introduction of some modicum of rule of law and due process in these

matters; the end of two long-standing cases of embargo affecting two developing countries;

and the establishment by the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 27/21, of the mandate

to address the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, after

decades of discussions. He regretted, however, the polarization in the vote on resolution

27/21, and appealed to all stakeholders to give dialogue and engagement a chance.

15. The Special Rapporteur noted that some conceptual difficulties remained. There was

the question of compatibility between unilateral coercive measures and international law,

human rights law and humanitarian law. The Vienna Declaration called upon all States “to

refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the

Charter of the United Nations that create obstacles to trade”; the question remained,

however, whether all unilateral coercive measures should be stopped for not complying

with international law or whether some complied while others did not. The former view

was supported by the Declaration on the Principles of International Law Concerning

Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the

United Nations, while the second seemed to tally with the guidelines on implementation

and evaluation of restrictive measures of the European Union, which stressed that “the

introduction and implementation of restrictive measures must always be in accordance with

international law”. Which criteria were actually used to determine whether a specific

measure complied with international law, and what the consequence would be when a

measure was found to be compliant but had egregious consequences for human rights, was

still unclear. Determining the seriousness of the said consequences was, for the mandate,

closely interrelated with the issue of legality.

16. The Special Rapporteur pointed out that the issue of legality was not yet ripe for a

solution that could open the way for a ground-breaking decision that took the Final Act of

the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1975 as a template.1

17. The Special Rapporteur stated that Article 55 (c) of the Charter of the United

Nations called for “universal” respect of human rights, meaning that all States should

observe them in their domestic affairs as well as on the territory of other States through

their own unilateral coercive measures. In its resolution 60/251, the General Assembly

made the same point in deciding that the Human Rights Council should be “responsible for

promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights”. As far back as 1981, the

Human Rights Committee had stated that “it would be unconscionable to so interpret the

responsibility under article 2 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as to permit a

State party to perpetrate violations of the Covenant on the territory of another State, which

violations it could not perpetrate on its own territory”.2 A number of source States were

nonetheless of the opinion that possible “violations of human rights on the territory of

another State” did not fall within the mandate of the Human Rights Council.

18. In the light of the described recent advances and remaining challenges, the Special

Rapporteur advocated for a pragmatic approach, starting with the simpler challenges before

moving on to more conceptual issues. Firstly, he suggested that, given the lack of clarity in

the data currently available, the establishment of a “clearing house” or registry for

unilateral coercive measures within the United Nations be considered. To that end, the

Human Rights Council would need to request the Secretary-General to establish and

maintain a universal non-discriminatory registry, similar to the one established by the

General Assembly in its resolution 46/36, for conventional arms. Secondly, he advocated

for the formulation of parameters for an objective assessment of the adverse impact of

unilateral coercive measures on the most vulnerable groups. Thirdly, he proposed

reconciling the progress made in some source States with universality principles, and

persuading other States to sign on, whether in terms of United Nations guidelines or in the

form of appeal and review mechanisms, and establishing a reality check. Finally, he called

for global coherence to unilateral coercive measures in a way that would effectively reduce

their adverse impact on human rights and promote consistency with Security Council

multilateral sanctions.

1 Under section VI on “Non-intervention in internal affairs” of the Final Act, States pledged “in all

circumstances [to] refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion

designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by any other participating State of the rights

inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind” 2 A/36/40, Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, communication no. R.12/52, para. 12.3.

19. Mr. Abdel-Moneim stated that unilateral coercive measures, sometimes referred to

as sanctions, had always been controversial. Some States affirmed they were

counterproductive, while others considered them beneficial in certain contexts. He recalled

the experience after the First World War, when the sanctions adopted in 1919 led directly

or indirectly to the Second World War. Sanctions had a harmful impact on human rights;

most literature on this issue concurred with this conclusion. From a historical perspective,

in many cases sanctions had been welcome, appreciated and applied in spite of criticism,

when used to fight human rights abuses, as was the case with apartheid. The fact remained

that sanctions may continue to be applied in the foreseeable future.

20. Mr. Abdel-Moneim highlighted three recent processes used to introduce important

changes with regard to sanctions: one by the Government of Germany (the “Bonn-Berlin

process”), one by the Government of Switzerland (the “Interlaken process”) and one by the

Government of Sweden (the “Stockholm process”). The processes raised three issues.

Firstly, some of these initiatives had been adopted more than a decade ago and needed to be

updated. Secondly, although the humanitarian perspective had been taken into account, the

processes needed to elaborate on the human rights component. Thirdly, the processes

emphasized targeted sanctions; while it was accepted, however, that “targeted” or “smart”

sanctions were better than comprehensive sanctions, they were not easy to apply and had to

be used carefully. The outcome of targeted sanctions was difficult to foresee and to

channel. For example, if a main bank was targeted, the banking system and, consequently,

the whole economy could be destabilized. Certain helpful conditions to mitigate adverse

effects, defined by the Non-Aligned Movement at the time of the Interlaken process,

included the periodic review of sanctions, their immediate lifting after compliance (limited

time frame) and the establishment of clear and specific rules or conditions for the targeted

country.

21. With regard to what could be done in the foreseeable future, the stage prior to the

drafting of sanctions was of crucial importance. Factual information on and estimates of

each relevant factor had to be thoroughly verified and evaluated in a careful, precise and

balanced manner. A comprehensive collective approach should be consolidated in this

regard.

22. Mr. Abdel-Moneim agreed that sanctions could be harmful to human rights, and that

it was difficult to affirm the contrary. The critical challenge was to monitor the impact of

unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Quantitative models for assessing such an

impact were available and needed to be improved. In that sense, general comment No. 8 of

the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was worth considering, and treaty

bodies could play a significant role, as appropriate, in this regard.

23. The moderator subsequently referred to three main elements. Regarding the nature

of unilateral coercive measures, it seemed clear that their nature, legitimacy and legality

were in question in a complex discussion, and they ran counter to moral common sense.

Also, it was clear that the measures did not make a positive contribution to the

advancement of human rights. Lastly, there was a need for an examination of the

conceptual framework, be it by means of monitoring or re-examining and studying key

concepts and issues with regard to unilateral coercive measures.

B. Interactive discussion

24. During the plenary discussion, representatives of the following States took the floor:

Algeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Armenia, Belarus, China, Cuba,

Ecuador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Egypt,

Iran (Islamic Republic of) (one statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, another

on national capacity), Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syrian

Arab Republic, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. A

representative of the European Union participated in the discussion.

25. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took the floor:

Africa Speaks, Agence pour les droits de l’homme, Global Network for Rights and

Development, International-Lawyers.org, Indian Council of South America, Iranian Elite

Research Centre, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Society Studies Centre

and Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik.

26. The delegates who took the floor affirmed that it was an established fact that

unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on human rights, including and “above

all” the right to development. In particular, the poor and groups in situations of

vulnerability suffered more acutely as a result of the denial of access to medicines, food,

clothing, housing and educational equipment, and of the restricted access to the job market.

“Old approaches” based on coercion had proven, time and again, to be pointless and futile.

27. Unilateral coercive measures had severely hampered the development process and

had a potential negative impact on key objectives of the United Nations. Moreover, long-

term unilateral coercive measures often resulted in social problems and raised humanitarian

concerns. It was affirmed that, within the responsibility of the international community to

protect and guarantee human rights, there was no room for unilateral coercive measures and

that collaboration should be the cornerstone on this issue. Speakers recalled that the Charter

of the United Nations and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called upon

States to refrain from any unilateral measure that created obstacles to trade relations among

States and impeded the full realization of human rights. Unilateral coercive measures had

also been recognized as a major challenge to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development.

28. The Human Rights Council had to assess the impact on human rights of unilateral

coercive measures imposed by industrial countries on developing countries. There was an

urgent need for an independent mechanism within the United Nations for the victims of

unilateral coercive measures to address the issues of remedies and redress with a view to

promote accountability and reparations. One delegate recommended that the Special

Rapporteur study and consider appropriate mechanisms, including a possible adjudicatory

procedure for accountability of source States and reparations for affected States and

victims. A plea was made to other special procedure mandate holders of the Council to

tackle the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights in the context of

their respective mandates.

29. One delegate expressed the view that the Human Rights Council was not the

appropriate forum to address this issue and that the situation in Crimea deserved equal

treatment by the Council. The introduction and implementation of restrictive measures was

a legitimate part of foreign policy that should always be used in accordance with

international law, respect for human rights – including the right to due process and effective

remedy – and international humanitarian law, and should always be proportionate with its

objective. Restrictive measures were not punitive, given that they targeted policies, the

means implementing them and the individuals responsible for them. Targeted sanctions

included clearly defined safeguards designed to limit any unintended effects. They should

minimize adverse consequences for those not responsible for such policies, and provide for

appropriate exemptions to take into account the basic needs of targeted persons. A call was

made for the Special Rapporteur to visit countries and to determine the root cause of

unilateral coercive measures, not just their consequences.

30. Several delegates condemned unilateral coercive measures, including unilateral

actions, which were taken for political concerns against sovereign countries, in order to

prevent them from exercising their sovereign right to choose their own political, social and

economic systems. Countries and regional organizations that took unilateral coercive

measures, particularly under the pretext of human rights, should remember that such actions

had a serious negative impact on human rights that, in some cases, was similar to a

violation of international humanitarian law. States were call upon to stop imposing such

measures as a political tool. An appeal was made for unilateral coercive measures by the

European Union against the Syrian oil industry to be investigated, given that they

jeopardized the full range of human rights and interfered with the sovereign rights of the

State.

31. Delegates pointed out that since unilateral coercive measures had direct negative

consequences on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural

rights and the right to development, victims were entitled to reparation. Unilateral coercive

measures were often contrary to international law, created an international spirit of

suspicion and distrust, impeded good neighbourly relations, restricted transnational trade

and had a long-term destabilizing effect on targeted countries. It was pointed out that the

restriction of trade agreements and the obstruction of financial and investment flows

between sender and targeted countries undermined the ability of States to meet their

development commitments by, inter alia, hampering transit and communication routes,

creating burdens on economic operators and businesses, and multiplying costs of basic

products. Delegates stressed the importance of discussing ways to assess the tangible

impact of these measures, and of the measures that could be taken to minimize that impact.

32. It was stressed that groups in situations of vulnerability from developing countries

were the primary victims of unilateral coercive measures, which had led to the loss of

thousands of lives and usually resulted in marginalizing those who were already

marginalized. Sanctions were often applied without safeguards to protect the rights of local

populations. Land blockades by neighbouring countries had negative human rights

implications, which were further compounded in the case of land-locked countries. An

example was offered regarding the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Zimbabwe; the

measures were not selective, and had had a devastating impact on the population. Reference

was also made to the long-lasting embargo against Cuba, which was regarded as the longest

and most unjust system of unilateral coercive measures ever imposed. The panel was asked

to discuss how to best rebuild fragile national frameworks in order to mitigate the impact of

unilateral coercive measures on their citizens.

33. Delegates emphasized that the imposition of unilateral sanctions was often

influenced by political objectives to force smaller States to bow to the wishes of powerful

ones. It was affirmed that unilateral coercive measures jeopardized peace and international

security. Delegates expressed serious concern at the absence of a comprehensive

mechanism for monitoring the negative impact of sanctions, and called upon the Human

Rights Council to play a proactive role in the establishment of such a mechanism. One

delegate stated that the violation of the sovereignty of States constituted a flagrant violation

of human rights, and that the Council should work to promote dialogue among States.

Quantitative and qualitative documentation of violations resulting from the illegitimate and

illegal use of unilateral coercive measures was particularly important to ensure

accountability, avoid impunity and allow enhanced access for redress for victims, including

compensation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

34. The representatives of non-governmental organizations taking the floor advocated

for the immediate lifting of unilateral coercive measures, which were widely regarded as

politically motivated and contrary to international law. Some participants qualified the

measures as a systemic and egregious violation of human rights. There was agreement that

unilateral coercive measures particularly affect marginalized people, and that they should

not target civilians. It was stressed that economic embargoes was a form of collective

punishment of individuals not responsible for political decisions. Unilateral coercive

measures were also thought to undermine economic transparency, aggravate corruption,

impede the delivery of remittances by the diaspora and create an environment conducive to

the spread of unethical business practices. They were believed to ultimately ruin the

infrastructures of society.

35. The rights of indigenous peoples suffered from many unilateral coercive measures,

given that their resources and intellectual property were being taken from them simply

because States thought that they had the right to do so. A plea was made that the rights of

peoples, as well as those of individuals, be taken into account when considering the

negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Non-governmental

organizations welcomed the creation of the mandate of Special Rapporteur on the negative

impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, and expressed

gratitude for his first report (A/HRC/30/45).

36. Specific situations of unilateral coercive measures imposed on developing countries,

with devastating effects on human rights, were raised by non-governmental organizations.

Representatives stated that sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran had targeted

civilians for years, and had had a negative impact on their human rights, in particular their

rights to health and to access to food. The sanctions had put a great amount of pressure on

the population rather than the Government.

37. Reference was also made to the importance of recognizing the harmful effects of the

blockade and trade embargo imposed against the Sudan, which has obstructed the State’s

progress and had a severe impact on human rights, including the right to development.

There was particular concern with regard to access to medicines in the Sudan, given that the

sanctions prevented the local population from importing medicines. All development

indicators had dropped owing to the sanctions imposed on the Sudan. Lastly, attention was

drawn to the devastating effect of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan, in

particular on the health of children. The panel members were asked to discuss the

individual responsibility of government actors and leaders who had imposed those

sanctions.

C. Responses by panellists

38. The moderator summarized the questions asked during the two rounds of interactive

discussion concerning the mechanisms that could prevent the adverse impact of unilateral

coercive measures on human rights. The panellists were given the opportunity to respond to

questions and issues raised from the floor and to make concluding remarks.

39. The Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

stated that the Human Rights Council was a part of the United Nations, the reference

document of which is the Charter of the United Nations. After quoting the Preamble to the

Charter, he affirmed that the Organization had been created to act and to take measures

together, to be a centre in which activities would be agreed, and to address threats to

international peace and security through its Security Council. In the twentieth century, the

adoption of sanctions had led the world to global conflict. In current times, the Security

Council was the one place where threats to international peace and security could be

discussed and actions thereto agreed upon; unless this was respected, the world would slide

into war.

40. The key questions to be asked concerned the actions available to measure the impact

of unilateral coercive measures taken outside the Security Council, and how to determine

the legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures. In no way should unilateral steps outside of

the United Nations system be accepted. The draft articles of the International Law

Commission on States’ responsibility made reference to “other actions”; consequently, any

attempt to apply coercive sanctions or measures unilaterally was not legitimate under

international law. Practitioners and academics should pay more attention to assessing the

legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures. Once agreement was reached regarding their

legitimacy and legality, the global community would be able to move forward to discuss in

the Security Council the measures that could be adopted to address specific situations.

41. The Special Rapporteur stated that a large number of United Nations resolutions and

documents did not favour unilateral coercive measures, and pointed out their negative

impact on human rights. Although efforts made by some source States to scale back

unilateral coercive measures were welcome, a number of States continued to maintain

unilateral coercive measures as an important element of their foreign policy. It was

regrettable that little had been said about the 2005 World Summit Outcome, 3 in which

Heads of State and Government called for fair and clear procedures for listing individuals

of concern on sanctions lists. This was a huge issue, and some progress had been made. The

Special Rapporteur hoped to see similar progress in the listing of States using or being

subjected to unilateral coercive measures, given that mass of data on this issue was

unfortunately not transparent.

42. The Special Rapporteur made a plea to rethink the concept of “humanitarian

access”; this was exemplified by the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where although

medicines were excluded from the sanctions, more than 85,000 additional people per year

suffering from cancer were unable to obtain the proper medicines. Concerning the

relationship between the right to self-determination and unilateral coercive measures, the

right was deemed to have been violated where people were deprived of their own means of

subsistence. He clarified that, as a special procedure mandate holder, he could not make any

judgement about the causes of current international crises, but focused exclusively on his

mandate, which was the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.

43. Mr. Abdel-Moneim noted with appreciation the comments made and questions

asked by delegates and civil society organizations. International peace and security could be

best maintained when human suffering was eliminated and when human dignity was

safeguarded. Since 2003, the Security Council had imposed a great number of sanctions.

The priority should be to alleviate suffering; once that has been addressed, the discussion

may move on to the design of international sanctions.

44. It was important to make a distinction between the legality of decisions on the use of

unilateral coercive measures and the legal implications of the effects of the implementation

of those decisions. These are two related but separate things. The fact to be addressed

immediately is the human rights implications of sanctions. Economic measures have an

impact first and foremost on economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to

development, and it is logical that the United Nations treaty bodies concerned deal with this

issue, in addition to the Charter-based bodies.

IV. Conclusions

45. In closing the discussion, the moderator offered brief conclusions and a

summary of the recommendations drawn from the panel discussion:

(a) Looking ahead, an “ABC” (assumptions, building blocks and common

ground) approach might be adopted for unilateral coercive measures;

3 General Assembly resolution 60/1.

(b) The international community is now in a position to assume that

unilateral coercive measures are counterproductive with respect to all dimensions of

human rights, affecting mainly developing countries. There is broad agreement that

such measures are illegitimate, illegal and immoral, and do not reflect the purposes of

promoting and protecting human rights as reflected in the Charter of the United

Nations;

(c) The practice of imposing sanctions on developing countries raises the

issue of the right of access to medicines and the right to food. The ideology behind

sanctions should, like the sanctions industry itself, which includes government

officials, lawyers and other parties concerned, be defeated mercilessly. The ideology

should be replaced by a more humane approach that will lead to the delegitimization

of unilateral coercive measures;

(d) There is the need for more discussion on the different aspects of

unilateral coercive measures, including accountability and remedy for victims that

had endured them for years. All special procedures should address the issue from the

perspective of their specific mandate. More collective efforts are needed at the

international level to achieve further consensus based on respect for, and the

protection and fulfilment of, all human rights, including the right to development;

(e) The Secretary-General should be urged to appoint a panel of experts to

address these issues, aimed at building-consensus and proposing solutions.