Human rights and unilateral coercive measures
The term “unilateral coercive measures” usually refers to economic measures taken by one State to compel a change in the policy of another State. Examples of such measures include trade sanctions in the form of embargoes and the interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and target countries. More recently, so-called “smart” or “targeted” sanctions such as asset freezing and travel bans, have been employed by individual States in order to influence persons who are perceived to have political influence in another State 1. The continuing practice of imposing various forms of unilateral coercive measures and the potential impact of such measures on human rights, has drawn the attention of a large number of Member States 2, UN human rights bodies and mechanisms including Special Procedures, academics and civil society organisations 3.
Several discussions, resolutions and reports presented to the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and the former Commission on Human Rights have addressed the issue of the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the full enjoyment of human rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 4, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 called upon States to “refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that creates obstacles to trade relations among States and impede the full realization of the human rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights instruments, in particular the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services”. Several United Nations studies have also been carried out on unilateral coercive measures and human rights including the issue of legality of such measures 5. These studies have analysed the legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures from a human rights perspective and the complex and divergent views around this topic. They have also stressed the need to further examine the linkages between unilateral coercive measures and human rights.
Workshop on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights (Geneva, 5 April 2013)
In its resolution 19/32, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to organize a workshop on the various aspects relating to the impact of the application of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the affected populations in the States targeted, with the participation of States, academic experts and civil society representatives. This workshop was held on 5 April 2013 in Room XII, Palais des Nations, Geneva (from 10.00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m).The report of the workshop will be submitted to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session.
Objectives
The workshop on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights:
- Provided a platform for the exchange of views among States, academic and civil society experts, and human rights mechanisms on the impact of the application of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights;
- Shared experiences with regard to specific cases and their impact on the human rights of affected populations in targeted States
Format
The Workshop consisted of presentations by invited experts, followed by an interactive dialogue. The concept note of the workshop is available here. The programme is available here.
Participants
Representatives of Member States, UN agencies, academia and civil society and other relevant stakeholders, were invited to the workshop. Interpretation was available in the six official languages of the United Nations.
Statements by Member States made available to the Secretariat:
Notes:
1. A/HRC/19/33.
2. GA Resolution A/67/118 “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” was adopted by a recorded vote of 188 to 3, with 2 abstentions.
3. See the Report of the Secretary General on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/67/327 paragraphs 41, 42). See also the Secretary General’s annual report on Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/67/181), Report of the Secretary General, Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba (A/67/118), Secretary General’s report on Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries (A/66/138) and the Sub-Commission study E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33.
4. A/CONF.157/23.
5. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33 Working Paper prepared by Marc Bossuyt “The Adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights, 21 June 2000.The Human Rights Impacts of Sanctions on Iraq, Background Paper prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the meeting of the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs, 5 September 2000.
A/HRC/19/33, Thematic study of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, including recommendations on actions aimed at ending such measures, 11 January 2012.
E/C.12/1997/8, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 8 (1997) on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights.