A/HRC/24/20 citing the over 50-year-long sanctions imposed by the United States of America on Cuba as an example. 14. Responding to questions, the Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that, while the rights of indigenous peoples were often addressed by the Committee, he failed to see the relevance of unilateral coercive measures in relation to the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. Mr. Smit-Sibinga reiterated that the European Union considered sanctions a legitimate part of its foreign policy carried out in accordance with international law, as well as with its human rights and humanitarian obligations. Ms. Douhan reiterated the need to define the nature of sanctions. 15. Summing up session I, the Chairperson highlighted two prevailing views. Countries that had been affected by sanctions or unilateral coercive measures considered these measures illegal and ineffective and stressed the need to review the system at the international level in an independent manner. Countries that used these measures considered them justified as part of their foreign policy. It was important to build bridges and find a solution to make unilateral coercive measures less harsh on human rights. IV. Session II: Impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights 16. The panellists of session II included Benedict Chigara, Professor of Law at Brunel University; Anuradha Chenoy, Professor of Jawaharlal Nehru University; and Salvador Tanajero, Legal Adviser of the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva. 17. Mr. Chigara addressed the question of whether States had the right to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce human rights law and, if so, what the recognized criteria and procedures were for exercising this right in particular. He surveyed jurisprudence on cardinal principles governing inter-State relations, including the Lotus case, Permanent Court of International Justice (1927); the Island of Palmas case, Permanent Court of Arbitration (1928); the Corfu Channel case, International Court of Justice (1949); the Nicaragua case, International Court of Justice (1986); and Germany v Italy, International Court of Justice (2012). He concluded that unilateral coercive measures were illegal under current international law and that their use was a digression from the rule of law. Arguing that any State using unilateral coercive measures was in effect challenging the rule of law system under the Charter of the United Nations, he proposed the establishment of a world court of human rights to disarm the reason often cited by unilateralists for instituting coercive measures. Only after a positive finding of the proposed world court of human rights, and upon stringent conditions, would third States be allowed to impose coercive measures against the State found to be violating its human rights obligations under international law. 18. Ms. Chenoy observed that the current discourse on unilateral coercive measures was dominated by ideological and geopolitical considerations, and excluded the human rights of people on the ground, adding that both the users and the receivers of unilateral coercive measures were “cynical” about human rights. Citing examples in Iraq, Myanmar and Cuba, she noted that sanctions, whether smart or not, often created a regime of structural violence, and their impact was disproportionately borne by women and children. Sanctions often did not weaken the targeted regimes; rather, they strengthened the regimes, weakened the people and led to increased radicalization and violence against women. Unilateral coercive measures had deep and long-term negative social-psychological effects, and there was little morality for punishing a population and the most vulnerable such as women, children, human rights defenders and minorities. Ms. Chenoy stressed the importance of studies on 7