A/HRC/42/46/Add.1 Introduction The Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the updated text of Elements for a draft General Assembly declaration on unilateral coercive measures and the rule of law, which was prepared by Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Idriss Jazairy, pursuant to Council resolution 40/3. The present version is the third and the latest version of the Elements for a draft General Assembly declaration on unilateral coercive measures and the rule of law submitted to the Council by the current mandate holder. A. Basic facts 1. Resolution 34/13 adopted by the Human Rights Council on 24 March 2017 “urged all States to refrain from imposing unilateral coercive measures, also urged the removal of such measures, as they are contrary to the Charter and norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States at all levels, and it should be recalled that such measures prevent the full realization of economic and social development of nations while also affecting the full realization of human rights”. 2. Unilateral coercive measures have a tendency to remain in force irrespective of the achievement of its purported objective. 3. Unilateral coercive measures requiring extraterritorial application to third parties of laws adopted by a source country against a target country, and which call for secondary sanctions on such third parties in case of non-compliance, are unlawful under international law. 4. Unilateral coercive measures in a number of cases entail severe adverse impacts on the enjoyment of human rights of targeted populations and individuals, have often proven to be inefficient, and are most likely to entail unintended effects in the form of adverse human rights impacts on non-designated third parties. B. Basic principles 5. In compliance with article 41 of the UN Charter, the Security Council should be recognised as having the exclusive right to impose economic financial and other non-forcible measures on targeted states or individuals and this is for the purpose of giving effect to its decisions. Accordingly unilateral coercive measures should be phased out as early as possible starting with those found to have the most egregious effects in terms of denials of human rights; 6. The extraterritorial application to third parties of laws adopted by source countries to sanction a target country and which call for secondary sanctions on such third parties in cases of non-compliance, should not be recognised by third parties through the generalisation of “Blocking statutes” and should be phased out; 7. Whilst targeted States have a responsibility to mitigate the adverse human rights impact of unilateral sanctions imposed by source countries, the latter are also accountable for any adverse effects on human rights occurring in target countries, even if such effects are unintended, to the extent that “when an external party takes upon itself even partial responsibility for the situation within a country (whether under Chapter VII of the Charter or otherwise), it also unavoidably assumes a responsibility to do all within its powers to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected population” (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 8 on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/1997/8, para. 13). 8. The inhabitants of a given country do not forfeit basic economic, social and cultural rights by virtue of any determination that their leaders have violated norms of international peace and security, as affirmed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 8 on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights (See E/C.12/1997/8, para. 16). 2