A/HRC/33/48 populations have been imposed. These mechanisms are also referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, according to which, States shall seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. 6 16. While States are free, as a matter of principle, to agree on such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of their disputes, 7 they are obligated to fulfil in good faith their obligations under the Charter. The legality of recourse to countermeasures in situations where inter-State negotiations are under way remains questionable.8 17. The Charter also provides that the Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by peaceful means (Article 33(2)), and that any member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly (Article 35(1)). The Special Rapporteur points out that, in accordance with Article 50 of the Charter, any State confronted with special economic problems as a result of the implementation of United Nations sanctions have the right to consult the Security Council. The ongoing debates surrounding the application of Article 50 and the compensation mechanisms that could be devised to that effect should considered to some extent relevant also to the issue of compensation for the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures. 9 B. Remedies available under specific dispute settlement clauses in treaties 1. International Court of Justice 18. The International Court of Justice has dual jurisdiction. The Court may be called upon to consider legal issues relating to unilateral coercive measures in the exercise of both its contentious jurisdiction and its advisory jurisdiction. Contentious jurisdiction 19. The Court may only deal with an inter-State dispute when the States concerned have recognized its jurisdiction. Therefore, no State can be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it has consented thereto.10 Disputes between targeting and targeted States regarding the application of unilateral coercive measures would fall under the broad 6 7 8 9 10 See General Assembly resolution 25/2625, annex . See for example, Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States (OLA/COD/2394) (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.92.V.7), paras. 19-20. It has been argued that “when the target State is engaged in negotiations in good faith, there should be no need to resort to countermeasures, and thus countermeasures would not be permitted under the requirement of necessity. It is only when the target State refuses to cooperate in dispute settlement in good faith that countermeasures become necessary”. See Y. Iwasawa and N. Iwatsuki, “Procedural Conditions” in The Law of International Responsibility, J. Crawford, A. Pellet and S. Olleson, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 1153. With regard to the application of Article 50 of the Charter, see A/47/277-S/24111, para.41, in which the Secretary-General recommended that the Security Council devise a set of measures involving the financial institutions and other components of the United Nations system that can be put in place to insulate States from such difficulties. Such measures would be a matter of equity and a means of encouraging States to cooperate with decisions of the Council. See R. Mackenzie and others, The Manual on International Courts and Tribunals, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 14. 5