CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ LEGAL STATUS OF UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES … HR = Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures; EL = Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion; DC = Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countrie / Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries Although the General Assembly usually adopts resolutions without a vote, 21 a recorded vote in the case of UCM resolutions is requested regularly. Official records of GA meetings show that the intensity of support increases in time. However, there is always a more or less numerous firm group of States (usually including the U.S. and other western States) opposing the proposed text or abstaining. The number of abstaining states is significant especially in voting on unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries resolutions. As the ICJ stated in Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the substantial numbers of negative votes and abstentions represents one of the reasons why these resolution fall short of establishing the existence of an opinio juris. Looking at GA resolutions through the optics of the ICJ and ILC, these documents do not provide evidence important for establishing the existence of a rule or the emergence of an opinio juris in case of examined illegality of unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions on the HRC agenda Since it was set up in 2006, the Human Rights Commission has devoted its attention to UCM, as well as the Commission for Human Rights before. 22 On 3 October 2014, by resolution 27/21, 23 the HRC decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Regarding the mandate of the HRC, all resolutions on UCM share the title Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures. The wording of resolutions in their introductory sequences is partially inspired by GA resolutions from the series Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures. As well as the General Assembly, the HRC is also (in every resolution from 2007 to 2017) “s tressing 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” . In comparison with GA resolutions, the language used in HRC resolutions apparently changes and the statement that UCM violate international law is articulated more and more clearly and vigorously. Brief language analysis illustrates this tendency: no word derived from “violate” appears in the HRC resolution from 2007. The particular word appears in the text once in 2009 and 2012, 24 two times in the resolution from 2013, 25 but four times in later 21 From 292 resolutions adopted on the 71th GA, 192 were adopted without voting. 22 E.g. Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/26, E/CN.4/RES/2001/2620, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 votes to 8, with 8 abstentions on 20 April 2001. 23 UNHRC Res 27/21 Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (3 October 2014) UNDoc A/HRC/RES/27/21. 24 In both resolutions it can be found in the paragraphthat reviews the conclusions of the Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement in July 2009, “ in which the States members of the Movement decided to oppose unilateralism and unilaterally-imposed measures by certain States, which can lead to the erosion and violation of the Charter and international law… ” UN HRC Res 12/22 Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (2 October 2009) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/12/22; UN HRC Res 19/32 Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (23 March 2012) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/19/32. 25 Once on the ocassion of recalling the final document of the summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement in August 2012, for the second time in par. 14. where the HRC “ recognizes the importance of the quantitative and qualitative documentation of the negative impacts associated with the application

123