CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ

LEGAL STATUS OF UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES …

A/HRC/RES/15/24 A/HRC/RES/19/32 A/HRC/RES/24/14 A/HRC/RES/27/21 A/HRC/RES/30/2 A/HRC/RES/34/13

1. 10. 2010 23. 3. 2012 8. 10. 2013 3. 10. 2014 1. 10. 2015 27. 3. 2017

32 35 31 31 33 32

14 12 15 14 14

0 0 1 2 0 0

14 + 1 28

Source: Author. Based on resolutions listed in the table. The partial conclusion on HRC resolutions and their possible importance for customary international law corresponds to conclusions presented above in relation to GA resolutions. They do not confirm the discussed customary rule on illegality of unilateral coercive measures. Conclusion Since 1983, a resolution dealing with different aspects of unilateral coercive measures appears on a list of resolutions, adopted by UN General Assembly almost every year. Since 2007, also the Human Rights Council has produced resolutions on Human rights and unilateral coercive measures on a regular basis. Although these resolutions are concerned with different aspects of UCM, their common message is to condemn UCM, point out the violations of human rights as the result of UCM application, and proclaim that UCM contravene international law. However, when we consider whether these resolutions confirm customary rule on the illegality of UCM or not, the number or frequency of resolutions are not as important as the normative language and the way of the adoption of the text. These two criteria were defined in ICJ advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons in 1996 and reflected in recent reports of Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur for the topic ‘Identification of customary international law’. The article examines resolutions of the General Assembly and also Human Rights Council resolutions on UCM and provides answers for two questions: 1. Is the language of the resolution convincing, are the formulations used in the text normatively sufficient? 2. Were these resolutions adopted unanimously, or was there significant opposition? Answers are coincident in both cases. The language of GA as well as HRC resolutions uses words indicating UCM are in contradiction with international law, however chosen formulations are not as conclusive as ICJ anticipated in the advisory opinion. All studied resolutions on UCM were adopted on the basis of recorded vote. Regarding the fact that the General Assembly usually decides unanimously - without voting, this finding suggests that the topic is arguable. A closer look at voting records proves a stable group of states voting against or abstaining. Although the number of disagreeing states differs, and depends on the particular topic of the resolution, votes against appear on a regular basis. Altogether, this continuing and significant opposition of states, together with the weak normativity of the text of resolutions prevents the establishment of customary rule on the illegality of unilateral sanctions.

125