A/HRC/42/46 the context. In its resolutions, the Assembly calls on all States to refrain from using unilateral coercive measures. The measures condemned are laws and regulations adopted by States the extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. The Assembly also makes clear that States that refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind dealt with in the present report or that repeal or invalidate any such measures already in force would be acting in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirm the freedom of trade and navigation (see, e.g., resolution 73/8, paras. 2–3). 45. In the preamble of its resolutions, the General Assembly refers to certain general principles, including the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs and freedom of international trade and navigation, which are also enshrined in many international legal instruments. It also refers to declarations and resolutions of different intergovernmental forums, bodies and Governments that express the rejection by the international community and public opinion of the promulgation and application of measures of the kind referred to above. 46. It would thus appear that the international community views as unlawful those unilateral coercive measures the extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. Being almost universally proclaimed as such by the international community, that view therefore qualifies as an emerging rule of customary international law. B. Obligation to resist the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions 47. There is a legal argument that States may be under a legal obligation not to recognize the effects of unlawful sanctions, especially those applied extraterritorially and secondary economic sanctions. In fact, there exists in international law an obligation of non-recognition of (at least certain) unlawful situations. Such an obligation derives from the well-established general principle of law ex injuria jus non oritur, meaning that legal rights cannot derive from illegal acts.65 It is set out in particular in article 41 (2) of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts: “No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach [by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law], nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation”.66 48. What are the peremptory norms the violation of which can give rise to the obligation of non-recognition? The forcible acquisition of territory is the most well-known example, and appears to be the unlawful situation par excellence covered by the obligation of nonrecognition under customary international law.67 But breaches of other peremptory norms can arguably be directly relevant to the same obligation, such as the right to selfdetermination, the prohibition of racial discrimination and apartheid, and basic principles of international humanitarian law.68 The Special Rapporteur has already made the point that all three sets of peremptory norms referred to above could possibly be breached through the imposition of (at least certain forms of) economic sanctions. 49. The right to self-determination is recognized, inter alia, in common article 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which also spells out that, by virtue of that right, all peoples freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and 65 66 67 68 14 Martin Dawidowicz, “The obligation of non-recognition of an unlawful situation”, James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, eds., The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 677–686. See General Assembly resolution 56/83, annex, as modified by A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4. Dawidowicz, “The obligation of non-recognition of an unlawful situation”. Ibid.