A/HRC/39/54 Annex Elements for a draft General Assembly declaration on unilateral coercive measures and the rule of law (updated) 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 involving extraterritorial application of domestic measures 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. 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). 6. 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). 7. In situations where unilateral coercive measures inflict undue sufferings/have an egregious human rights impact, on the population of a targeted State, whatever legal motive is invoked, they become clearly illegal and their source countries should be called to account. This applies in particular to comprehensive embargoes coupled with secondary sanctions aimed at the economic isolation of the target country, the effects of which may be comparable with those of a wartime blockade. 8. Such call for the removal of unilateral coercive measures applies to comprehensive measures as well as to targeted measures and to economic as well as to financial measures. 9. As a consequence, the basic principle should be that States and groups of States should commit themselves to refraining from imposing unilateral coercive measures, as well as remove such measures as are in force, and shall commit to using other means of peaceful settlement of international disputes and differences. 18