CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ LEGAL STATUS OF UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES … to general international law and the Charter of the United Nations, unilateral coercive measures continue to be promulgated and implemented with all their extraterritorial effects, inter-alia, on the economic and social development of targeted countries and peoples and individuals under the jurisdiction of other States, “Since 2007 (A/RES/62/162), the GA has decided to stress also, “ that unilateral coercive measures and legislation are contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States ”. Since 2014 (A/RES/69/180) the normative language has been widened for the second time and a new provision (including the word “contrary”) was incorporated into the resolution. The GA “condemns the inclusion of Member States in unilateral lists under false pretexts, which are contrary to international law and the Charter, including false allegations of terrorism sponsorship, considering such lists as instruments for political or economic pressure against Member States, particularly developing countries”. Of course, there are also many other provisions in the resolutions mentioned above. Quite interesting are those provisions that indicate an existence of unilateral measures in conformity with international law, e.g. the recent resolution from 19 December 2016 (A/ RES/71/193), which urges states “to cease adopting or implementing any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States” ; a contratrio , the other unilateral measures, which are in accordance with international law, do not have to be ceased. Similarly, the GA “urges States to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter that impede the full achievement of sustainable economic and social development, particularly in developing countries” ; the language interpretation of this particular provision may lead to a conclusion that there must be unilateral measures that are in accordance with international law. Also, a fourth line of UCM resolutions could be identified. It is represented by documents focusing strictly on the particular sanctions regime - U.S. sanctions against Cuba. 15 Regarding the fact that these resolutions, entitled, Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, have extremely strong political (more than legal) background, this article will not examine them. At the end of the previous section, two questions were formulated. The first of them focuses on the language of resolutions. In the above mentioned GA resolutions on UCM we can find normative terms such as “violation” or “contrary to international law”. However, there is not such a clear and unconditional formulation as “UCM are prohibited”. In the light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Nuclear weapons, especially its par. 71, where the formulation “should be prohibited” in GA resolutions was found too weak to establish customary international rule, also the language of the text of the most cited GA resolutions must be assessed as normatively insufficient. More difficult seems to be a particular question, how to evaluate the wording of A/ RES/62/162 and the following GA resolutions on Human Rights and unilateral coercive 15 E. g. A/RES/47/19 of 24 November 1992, A/RES/53/4 of 14 October 1998, A/RES/54/21 of 9 November 1999, A/RES/4/6 of 28 October 2009, A/RES/65/6 of 26 October 2010, A/RES/66/6 of 25 October 2011, A/ RES/69/5 of 28 October 2014.

121