A/HRC/33/48 This suggests that the freedom to impose measures restricting trade with a targeted State is circumscribed to situations where such measures would not involve a violation of existing treaty obligations. This leaves the Court much to decide upon as regards unilateral coercive measures, their legality or otherwise under public international law, and their conformity or otherwise with human rights, including an assessment of the legal significance and consequences of repeated resolutions of the General Assembly condemning recourse to unilateral coercive measures. 23. The Special Rapporteur recalls that States subject to unilateral coercive measures may verify the existence of treaties in force with the targeting State(s). Such treaties may provide a basis for the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the event of a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty and could thus allow for a legal challenge of unilateral coercive measures resulting in violations of obligations set out in the relevant treaty, customary international law or relevant rules of human rights, including those forming part of jus cogens. Advisory jurisdiction 24. The International Court of Justice may render an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of any body or organ authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request.19 In this regard, it should be noted that further to Article 96 of the Charter, the General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on any legal question. In advisory cases, States are not parties and there is no claimant or defendant. The Court invites States or international organizations to provide information to assist the Court in its determination of the point(s) of law at issue. 25. Despite the fact that the advisory opinions of the Court are non-binding, they are of great practical importance and could have far-reaching implications. Indeed, The importance of the advisory function stems from the fact that it affects the general interpretation of International Law for the international community rather than simply for the particular States or entities directly affected by an individual opinion. Thus, advisory opinions of the Court, if properly implemented cannot only guide the requesting organ but also may serve the interests of the whole international community.20 26. In that respect, the Special Rapporteur invites member States concerned to consider submitting to the International Court of Justice a request for an advisory opinion on the legality or otherwise of the unilateral coercive measures, especially under the angle of their compliance or otherwise with human rights norms. Such advisory opinion would be of great significance to the international community and for the advancement of the rule of law. For the General Assembly to take a decision to submit a request for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice on the legality or otherwise of unilateral coercive measures, a resolution adopted by a simple majority vote appears to be sufficient. 21 19 20 21 On the advisory function of the International Court of Justice in general, see Mahasen M. Aljaghoub, The Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice, 1946-2005 (Berlin/New York, Springer, 2006); and Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005, 4th ed. Vols. I-IV (Boston, Massachusetts, Nijhoff Publishers, 2006). Ibid., p. 5. The question of whether a request for an advisory opinion constituted an “important question” in the meaning of Article 18 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations, thus requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly, seems to have been resolved by the negative, as evidenced by the uncontroversial practice following the requests to the International Court of Justice to render advisory 7