A/HRC/19/33 addition, the obligation to permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs as well as medical supplies12 and the prohibition of collective punishment already contained in the 1907 Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land13 are crucial for the evaluation of economic coercive measures. 11. In considering the negative impacts of sanctions, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concluded that human rights must be taken fully into account when designing an appropriate sanctions regime, that effective monitoring should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions are in force, and that the external entity imposing the sanctions has an obligation to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical in order to respond to any disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the targeted country.14 2. Customary international law and general principles 12. In addition to treaty law obligations, the imposition of unilateral coercive measures may infringe rules of general international law comprising both customary international law and general principles of law. (a) Trade relations among States as sovereign decisions 13. The starting point for any analysis of the interruption of trade relations between States, as the most widely used form of unilateral coercive measures in practice, is the question whether and, if so, to what extent States may be obligated to conduct and to continue trade relations with each other. 14. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice, the prevailing view appears to be that, in the absence of explicit treaty obligations, States are still considered to be free as to whether to maintain trade relations or not. 15 Thus, their politically or otherwise motivated sovereign decisions to stop such relations as such cannot be considered unlawful. 16 (b) Non-intervention 15. While economic coercive measures are not likely to fall under the notion of the use of force, non-intervention appears to be a more appropriate test for assessing their lawfulness. The principle of non-intervention focuses on the intensity of the interference and the purposes pursued by the action. In particular, many countries in Latin America appear to adhere to a broad notion of unlawful intervention.17 Within the United Nations more broadly, a growing movement can be ascertained in which numerous Member States have expressed their view that unilateral coercive measures of an economic character may constitute unlawful interferences. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Convention), art. 23, first paragraph. Convention on land warfare, annex, art. 50. General comment No. 8, paras. 12-14. International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 276. Christoph Ohler, “Unilateral Trade Measures”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011), para. 14. Available from www.mpepil.com. Cf. Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. 8; Charter of the Organization of American States, art. 19. 5