A/HRC/19/33 I. Introduction – scope and objective of the study 1. In its resolution 15/24, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare a thematic study on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, including recommendations on actions aimed at ending such measures, taking into account all previous reports, resolutions and relevant information available to the United Nations system in that regard, and to present the study to the Council. The present document contains a thematic study pursuant to this resolution. II. The notion of unilateral coercive measures 2. It is widely acknowledged that the term “unilateral coercive measures” is difficult to define. Unilateral coercive measures often refer to economic measures taken by one State to compel a change in policy of another State.1 The most widely used forms of economic pressure are trade sanctions in the form of embargoes and/or boycotts, and the interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and target countries. 2 While embargoes are often understood as trade sanctions aimed at preventing exports to a target country, boycotts are measures seeking to refuse imports from a target country. 3 However, frequently the combination of import and export restrictions is also referred to as a trade embargo.4 3. More recently, so-called “smart” or “targeted” sanctions, such as asset freezing and travel bans, have been employed by States in order to influence individuals who are perceived to be in a position to decide on a political action in a particular State.5 4. The prevailing definition requires a separate assessment as to whether and to what extent a specific form of unilateral coercive measures may be unlawful in the light of various legal standards. At the same time, it follows that unilateral coercive measures, regardless of their legality under a particular body of international law, may negatively impact human rights in various ways. Chapters III and IV are thus devoted to the issue of the legality of unilateral coercive measures and to their impact on the enjoyment of human rights, respectively. 1 2 3 4 5 See Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 698. See Margaret P. Doxey, International Sanctions in Contemporary Perspective, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996). Cf. Christopher C Joyner, “Boycott”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011). Available from www.mpepil.com. Cf. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, p. 733; Omer Y. Elagab, “Coercive economic measures against developing countries”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 41 (1998), pp. 682-694. See George A. Lopez and David Cortright, “Financial sanctions: the key to a „smart‟ sanctions strategy”, Die Friedens-Warte, vol. 72, No. 4 (1997), p. 327; Gary C. Hufbauer and Barbara Oegg, “Targeted sanctions: a policy alternative?”, Law and Policy in International Business, vol. 32 (2000-2001), pp. 1120; Iain Cameron, “UN targeted sanctions, legal safeguards and the European Convention on Human Rights”, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 72, No. 2 (2003), pp. 159-214. 3