A/HRC/30/45 limitations to the exercise of countermeasures as set out in article 50 of the same text. Countermeasures would thus be wrongful if they affected obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights; obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals; or other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law. 39. When applied by international organizational procedure outside that of the Security Council or by regional organizations, the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations24 become relevant. 40. While human rights law is often considered to be “soft law” as compared with international law, general comment No. 31 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights asserts that every State party to the Covenant is “obligated to every other State party to comply with its undertakings under the treaty” by considering that the violation of Covenant rights by any State party requires others to call on violators to “comply with their Covenant obligations”. In this case, human rights law is harsher on violators of obligations of human rights treaties than international law in relation to other treaty obligations, as it does not require the State(s) taking unilateral coercive measures to demonstrate injury from breach by the target country of its obligations under the International Bill of Human Rights. By these standards, any State party may intervene — some would say interfere — to call a defaulting State to comply with its obligations, even if the breach of a human rights provision by the latter causes no injury to the former. This raises the question as to whether this general comment opens the way for legitimizing the resort to unilateral coercive measures against States in breach of their human rights obligations. One might doubt it, since the general comment indicates that this call to comply, “far from being regarded as an unfriendly act, [is] regarded as a reflection of legitimate community interest”. Unilateral coercive measures are not friendly acts towards target countries. They are punitive and are usually resorted to after a breakdown of diplomatic negotiations. Were this to be a source of legitimacy for unilateral coercive measures, it would mean that any State could at any time take justice into its own hands and react through such measures against perceived breaches of human rights by any other State. It is precisely to avoid this resort of States to self-administered justice, which could easily threaten world peace, that the Charter of the United Nations was adopted and that centralized responsibilities in the field of the use of sanctions were devolved on the Security Council. Article 53 (1) of the Charter stipulates that “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without authorization of the Security Council”. The French version of Article 53 refers to “action coercitive”, which might cover unilateral coercive measures, though it can be argued that this article refers to resort to military force only. The issue of whether Article 53 precludes recourse to unilateral coercive measures without Security Council authorization is contentious. It is a moot point deserving further investigation by jurists.25 24 25 12 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/64/10), pp. 39-177. See also in this regard Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, “Countermeasures and Collective Security: The Case of the European Union Sanctions against Iran”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, vol.17 (2012), pp. 301-336. See A. Abass, Regional Organisations and the Development of Collective Security: Beyond Chapter VIII of the UN Charter (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2004), pp. 46-52. See also U. Villani, “The Security Council’s Authorization of Enforcement Action by Regional Organizations”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nation’s Law (2002), pp. 535 and 538-540.