A/HRC/42/46 cultural development. Common article 1 (2) provides that in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. It has been noted in that respect that “the imposition of economic sanctions on a state may raise special risks of depriving a people of its means of subsistence”.69 The manner in which such risks may materialize in given cases, through interference with the various economic, social and cultural rights, has been highlighted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in paragraph 3 of its general comment No. 8 (1997) on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights. It has been observed that “it is plain that in a given case, universally imposed sanctions regimes, which are insufficiently tailored or targeted and which lack adequate humanitarian exemptions, could have the cumulative effect of depriving a population, or substantial sections of it, of their means of subsistence”.70 Along the same line, it seems plausible to argue that “[u]nilateral economic sanctions (as opposed to multilateral UN measures under Chapter VII of the Charter) imposed by one State on another, to compel that State to change a particular political or economic policy, could amount to a prohibited intervention and a denial of selfdetermination”.71 Respect of self-determination in that context is to be read in context with the rule precluding economic and political coercion, affirmed, among others, by the General Assembly, in its Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)). 50. The prohibition of racial discrimination, another prominent peremptory norm, may be infringed by sanctions implemented on the basis of the country of residence or the nationality of the targeted populations, violating, inter alia, article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 1 and 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Finally, a plausible argument can be made that core rules of international humanitarian law may be disregarded through the imposition of economic sanctions affecting basic human rights or the civilian population at large, even in peacetime (A/73/175, paras. 16–36, and A/71/287, para. 28; see also A/HRC/30/45).72 51. The International Court of Justice has found in two cases that States were under an obligation to not recognize an unlawful situation. In 1971, the Court held that the presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that States Members of the United Nations were under an obligation to refrain from any act and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of its presence in and administration of Namibia. 73 In 2004, the Court found that the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, were contrary to international law. It held that Israel had violated certain obligations erga omnes including the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, certain rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict which are fundamental to the respect of the human person and elementary considerations of humanity, and article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions. The Court then stated: Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal 69 70 71 72 73 Ben Saul, David Kinley and Jacqueline Mowbray, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 117. Ibid., p. 118. Ibid., p. 107. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that humanitarian law provisions, such as the prohibition against the starvation of a civilian population as a method of warfare and the obligation to permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs and medical supplies, are crucial for the evaluation of economic coercive measures (A/HRC/19/33, para. 10). Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16, at p. 58, para. 133. 15