A/HRC/27/32 VIII. Conclusions 38. In summing up the discussions at the workshop, the Chair noted that there was a vast and complex web of unilateral coercive measures, which intersected with multilateral sanctions and those imposed by regional organizations. Some States that imposed unilateral coercive measures claimed to act in the name of the international community; in other instances Security Council sanctions were imposed in support of unilateral interests. The participants in the workshop had examined a wide range of impacts of coercive measures, from their impact on international humanitarian and human rights law, to their impact on the economy, on peace and security and on the social fabric of States. A number of panellists had questioned the purposes and effectiveness of unilateral coercive measures, whether imposed to react to prior violations by the targeted State, in response to terrorism, as an alternative to war or in the context of war. The Chair pointed to a need to redefine what was understood as the effectiveness of coercive measures in order to take human rights and humanitarian concerns into account. 39. The Chair summarized the discussions on ensuring accountability and humanitarian exceptions for unilateral coercive measures. She noted in particular the analysis of existing human rights mechanisms, and the call by some speakers for the creation of a special procedures mandate. She stressed the importance of public opinion and the need for populations to reflect on the accountability of their own Governments in States implementing unilateral coercive measures. In conclusion, she stated that it was necessary to move beyond tweaking sanctions to examine the place of sanctions in the current international setting. She noted deep-rooted problems and grievances within the international system, and the importance for the United Nations to give a voice to all members of the international community, in order to ensure multilateralism, mutual respect and the peaceful settlement of disputes. 12