A/HRC/43/36 States with the aim of coercing other States to subordinate their sovereignty and of securing advantages. 33. Ms. Douhan argued that coercion in the international arena undermined the rule of law, worsened friendly relations between States and prevented the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Due to the sensitivity of the matter, drafting a United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights was very timely, despite strong disagreement between source and target countries. 34. With regard to the elements and principles of the future declaration, Ms. Douhan suggested elaborating a definition of “unilateral coercive measures” for clarity and consistency in terminology. The absence of a universally agreed definition had led to confusion. States could, in exercising their sovereignty, apply means of pressure that were not prohibited by any international treaty or custom. 35. Ms. Douhan proposed the following definition of unilateral coercive measures: “Measures applied by States, groups of States or regional organizations, without or beyond the authorization of the Security Council, against other States, individuals or entities in order to change a policy or the behaviour of a directly or indirectly targeted State, entity or individual, if these measures cannot undoubtedly be qualified as not violating any international obligation of the applying State or organization, or its wrongfulness is not excluded under general international law.” 36. Ms. Douhan added that, in recent resolutions and reports, reference had been made to “source State”, “unilateral coercive measures with extraterritorial effect” and “international differences”. The possibility of applying international humanitarian law in cases involving the use of strong economic measures (comparable with those of a military blockade) against States in the absence of military conflict may further exacerbate the situation rather than narrow existing discrepancies. 37. With regard to affected individuals and entities directly targeted by unilateral coercive measures, Ms. Douhan suggested including in the future declaration an effective human rights protection mechanism. She stressed that the future declaration should aim at to promote and protect all human rights, not only economic rights or the right to development. Both the right to development and the right to peace rested on the observance of all categories of human rights. Special attention should be paid to the right to due process, insofar as that right was essential for guaranteeing the observance of all other categories of rights. 38. There was also a clear need to establish an effective system for providing short- and long-term responses to those removed from sanctions lists and compensation to those targeted by sanctions. For example, both the use of mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and national assessments of the existence of legal grounds for bringing forward criminal charges may exclude a number of cases from the discussion on unilateral coercive measures. 39. The use of illegal coercive measures to obtain from targeted States the subordination of their sovereign rights and to secure from them advantages of any kind was prohibited by the principle of non-intervention into domestic affairs as set forth in the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (General Assembly resolution 36/103). That prohibition had a peremptory character and may not be violated by any subject of international law. 40. Ms. Douhan concluded by suggesting that the future United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of all human rights should be developed while taking into consideration all potential subjects of sanctions and all possible types of measures, with full awareness of and respect for peremptory norms of international law, including the principle of non-intervention into the domestic affairs of States. Any progress on the matter could only be achieved if the rule of law was observed. 41. Mr. Mohamad pointed out that within the parameters of international law it had become evident that unilateral coercive measures or unilateral sanctions were in violation of certain core principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the core principles of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)). Those principles were: the principle of the sovereign 6