Human Rights Council holds panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights

MIDDAY

17 September 2015

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting held a panel discussion on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

In an opening address, Mona Rishmawi, Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that last year, the Council had created a Special Procedure mandate to consider the adverse implications of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had already considered this issue in 1997, and had concluded that the impact of unilateral coercive measures on vulnerable groups, on the right to food and on the right to water, on the right to work and on access to education, should be taken into consideration more. Today’s panel would allow the Human Rights Council to discuss the various aspects of this issue, and the need to develop basic principles, guidelines and mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.

The panellists were Aslan Abashidze, Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Mohamed Ezzeldine Abdel Moneim, member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Associate Professor of International Law and Organization at Suez Canal and Al-Azhar Universities (Egypt); and Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

The panel was moderated by Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, former Deputy Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations at Geneva, who in his opening remarks said that the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights raised significant questions that needed to be addressed, including the legality, morality and legitimacy of such sanctions. Also to address were the effectiveness of sanctions and the possibility of legal remedy and redress for negative human rights implications of unilateral coercive measures.

Mr. Abashidze stressed the non-legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures and said that unilateral coercive measures imposed outside of the United Nations system represented a breach of international peace and security and violated the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States. Unilateral coercive measures were immoral because of their negative effect on vulnerable populations, and were counter-productive, as the case of Cuba showed.

Special Rapporteur Jazairy highlighted the progress made, including the move away from unilateral coercive measures. However, one third of humanity today, or two billion persons, were still affected by unilateral coercive measures, and he suggested that the United Nations Secretary-General should provide a comprehensive picture of the unilateral coercive measures situation, including the establishment of a universal, non-discriminatory register of unilateral coercive measures at the United Nations.

Mr. Abdel Moneim said that sanctions had always been controversial; some said they were counterproductive, others considered them beneficial in certain contexts. The initiatives to introduce important changes into sanctions, such as the Berlin and Stockholm Processes, needed to be updated. Though targeted sanctions were better than comprehensive sanctions, they were not easier to apply, and their outcome was difficult to foresee and to canalize. There had to be a collective manner of assessing the factors leading to the consideration of applying sanctions and the critical thing was to monitor the impact on human rights.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers warned that countries and regional organizations that introduced unilateral coercive measures, particularly under the pretext of human rights, should remember that those actions had serious negative impacts on human rights. It was an established fact that unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on the human rights of people, particularly the poor and vulnerable ones, and that coercion had proven time and again to be futile. The absence of a comprehensive mechanism monitoring the negative impacts of sanctions was a serious concern, and speakers urged the Council to play a proactive role in the establishment of such a mechanism. Delegates stressed that restrictive measures must be in accordance with international law, must respect human rights and must be proportionate.

Speaking in the discussion were Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Ecuador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Russia, Syria, Egypt, Sierra Leone, China, Venezuela, Armenia, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Viet Nam, Belarus and Sudan.

Also speaking were Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Iranian Rights Research Centre, Global Network for Rights and Development, Indian Council of South America, Agence pour les droits de l’Homme, Africa Speaks, International Lawyers’ Organization, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, and Society Studies Centre.

The Human Rights Council is holding a full day of meetings today. At 3 p.m., it will continue its clustered interactive discussion on an equitable international order and on unilateral coercive measures. The Council will then hear the presentation of reports by the Intergovernmental Working Group on private military and security companies, and the Intergovernmental Working Group on the right to development, followed by the presentation of thematic reports by the Secretary-General, High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Opening Statements

MONA RISHMAWI, Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Council had created a Special Procedure mandate to consider the adverse implications of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had already considered this issue, and had concluded that the impact of unilateral coercive measures on vulnerable groups, on the right to food and on the right to water, on the right to work and access to education should be taken into consideration more. Today’s panel would allow the Human Rights Council to discuss the various aspects of this issue, and the need to develop basic principles, guidelines and mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR, former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva, and moderator, said sanctions and unilateral measures were usually used against developing countries, and highlighted the importance of taking their impact on the lives of people seriously. The impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights raised significant questions that needed to be addressed. One was the legality, morality and legitimacy of such sanctions. The effectiveness of such sanctions also needed to be addressed, together with the possibility of legal remedy and redress for human rights implications of unilateral coercive measures.

Statements by the Panellists

ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stressed the illegitimacy of unilateral coercive measures and said that the use of force in international relations was categorized as a crime in the United Nations Charter. It would be appropriate to examine the provisions of Articles 103 and 53 of the United Nations Charter which were the basis of collective security measures. Unilateral coercive measures imposed outside of the United Nations system represented a breach of international peace and security and violated the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of sovereign States. Unilateral coercive measures also had a negative impact on human rights, and this had been recognized in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, in the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and in resolutions by several United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms. Unilateral coercive measures were immoral because of their negative effect on vulnerable populations. Unilateral coercive measures should be called unilateral harmful measures and they were counter-productive, as the case of Cuba showed.

IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, took positive note of progress made, including the move away from unilateral coercive measures, introduction of a modicum of the rule of law in the use of unilateral coercive measures, and the Human Rights Council resolution to examine negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. On the downside, one third of humanity today, or two billion persons, were affected by unilateral coercive measures. On determining and interpreting the lawfulness of unilateral coercive measures, the Special Rapporteur noted the provisions of the United Nations Declaration of Principles of International Law and said that international law was unclear on the criteria governing the legality of unilateral coercive measures. In terms of the way forward, the Special Rapporteur suggested that, inter alia, the United Nations Secretary-General provide a comprehensive picture of the situation of unilateral coercive measures, including the establishment of a universal, non-discriminatory register of unilateral coercive measures at the United Nations; and to draw up assessment parameters on the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on most vulnerable groups.

MOHAMEN EZZELDINE ABDEL MONEIM, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Associate Professor of International Law and Organization at Suez Canal and Al-Azhar Universities (Egypt), said sanctions had always been controversial. Some said they were counterproductive, others considered them beneficial in certain contexts. Sanctions were harmful to human rights. The overwhelming majority of the literature on this issue agreed with this. Sanctions would however continue in the foreseeable future. Some initiatives had been conducted to introduce important changes as far as sanctions were concerned. These initiatives, the Berlin and Stockholm Processes, were taken a decade ago and needed to be updated. Though targeted sanctions were better than comprehensive sanctions, they were not easier to apply, and they needed to be used carefully. The outcome of targeted sanctions was difficult to foresee and to canalize. It was important to control the source and drafting of sanctions. Information and assessments were important. There had to be a collective manner of assessing the factors leading to the consideration of applying sanctions. The critical thing was to monitor the impact on human rights. Quantitative models for assessing such impacts had to be improved. General Comment 8 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights needed to be looked at more carefully, and treaty bodies could play a more important role in that respect.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR, former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva, and moderator, said the nature and legality of sanctions or unilateral coercive measures were under question. Unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on human rights. There was a need for a conceptual framework for assessing the consequences of sanctions.

Discussion

Iran, speaking on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, said that it was an established fact that unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on the human rights of people, particularly the poor and vulnerable ones, and that coercion had proven time and again to be futile. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, reminded that the United Nations Charter and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called upon States to refrain from measures that would harm economic relations and cause negative impact on the human rights of people. European Union reiterated that restrictive measures must be in accordance with international law, must respect human rights and must be proportionate, and said that the situation of Crimea deserved equal treatment by the Council. Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, strongly rejected unilateral coercive measures, including unilateral actions implemented for political concerns against sovereign countries to prevent them from exercising their sovereign rights to choose their own political, social and economic systems. Russia said that countries and regional organizations that introduced unilateral coercive measures, particularly under the pretext of human rights, should remember that those actions had serious negative impacts on human rights, which in some cases were similar to violations of international humanitarian law. Syria said that unilateral coercive measures by the European Union against the Syrian oil industry must be looked into, as this jeopardized the full panoply of human rights and interfered with the sovereign rights of the State.

Egypt said it opposed unilateral coercive measures, which had direct negative consequences on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, and said victims had to be ensured reparation. Sierra Leone said unilateral coercive measures often were contrary to international law, created an international spirit of suspicion, and had long-term destabilizing effects on targeted countries. China highlighted the negative impact of unilateral sanctions on human rights, and called upon countries to stop imposing such measures as a political tool. Venezuela said vulnerable groups from developing countries were the primary victims of unilateral coercive measures, which were a violation of international law which had led to the loss of thousands of lives. Armenia said land blockades by neighbouring countries had negative human rights implications, and this was even more the case when the targeted country had a land-locked territory. Nicaragua said the violation of the sovereignty of States was a flagrant violation of human rights, and believed that the Council should work to promote dialogue among States.

Organization for Defending Victims of Violence said sanctions against Iran had targeted civilians for years, and had had a negative impact on their right to health. Iranian Elite Research Center said it was important to recognize the harmful effects of economic sanctions imposed by the United States against Sudan, which had blocked the country’s progress. Global Network for Rights and Development said the blockade and trade embargo imposed on Sudan by the United States had caused severe economic consequences in the country, and called for the immediate lifting of these sanctions.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR, former Deputy Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations at Geneva and panel moderator, summarised the questions raised in the first part of the discussion, and welcomed the questions concerning the mechanisms which could prevent the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights.

ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the Human Rights Council was a part of the United Nations, whose document of depart was the United Nations Charter. The United Nations had been created to act together, be a centre in which activities would be agreed, and address threats to international peace and security through its Security Council. There was one place for agreeing threats to international peace and security, and for agreeing the actions, and unless this was respected, the world would slide into a war. Key questions were which measures were available to measure the impact of unilateral coercive measures undertaken outside of the United Nations Security Council, and how to determine the legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures.

IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said that the large number of United Nations resolutions did not favour unilateral coercive measures and pointed out their negative impact on human rights; at the same time a number of States continued to maintain unilateral coercive measures in their foreign policy arsenal. The situation in Crimea exceeded the mandate, said the Special Rapporteur, who was interested in the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. There was one country which had taken steps to supress the use of unilateral coercive measures and this should be welcomed. Not much had been said about the World Summit 2005 which called for clear listing of individuals of concern, which was a huge issue; some progress had been made so far and the Special Rapporteur wished to see the same progress in the listing of States using or being subjected to unilateral coercive measures. There was a whole mass of data which was unfortunately not transparent.

MOHAMEN EZZELDINE ABDEL MONEIM, Member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Associate Professor of International Law and Organization at Suez Canal and Al-Azhar Universities (Egypt), said it was important to lay a distinction between the legality of sanction decisions, and the legal implications of the effects of the implementation of such a decision. The fact was that the implementation of sanctions led to negative human rights implications. Economic measures impacted first and foremost economic, social and cultural rights, and it was normal that the concerned treaty body dealt with this issue.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR, former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva, moderator, underlined the importance of accountability and remedy for victims that had suffered for years.

Zimbabwe implored the imposition of unilateral sanctions to force smaller States to bow to the wishes of the powerful ones and said that the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Zimbabwe by the United States, United Kingdom and other Western powers were not selective and had had a devastating impact on the population. Pakistan said that the absence of a comprehensive mechanism monitoring the negative impacts of sanctions was a serious concern, and the Council needed to play a proactive role in the establishment of such a mechanism. Iran said that any unilateral coercive measures imposed on a country ran against some provision of international human rights law and Iran was deeply disturbed by their indiscriminate human cost. Cuba said that the embargo against Cuba never should have existed, adding that it was the longest and most unjust system of unilateral coercive measures imposed. Viet Nam said that unilateral sanctions negatively affected the population and had profound negative consequences on vulnerable categories such as women, children, elderly and disabled. Belarus said that the Human Rights Council should identify all negative impacts caused by unilateral coercive measures on human rights and contribute to eliminating this unjust practice which contravened international law. Sudan said that as a result of unilateral coercive measures, its citizens were unable to enjoy their fundamental rights and the rate of development had suffered a huge setback.

Indian Council of South America stated that the rights of indigenous peoples suffered from many unilateral coercive measures, as their resources and intellectual property were being taken from them simply because States thought they had the right to do so. Agence pour les droits de l’homme said that unilateral coercive measures had particularly adverse effects on marginalized people. They had had a negative impact on the population of Sudan as the sanctions had prevented the local population from importing medicines. There were underlying political interests for sanctions. Africa Speaks addressed the negative impact of the economic sanctions of the United States on Sudan and their profound adverse effect on human rights. The political reasons that led to sanctions had impeded the Sudanese citizens’ right to development and Africa Speaks called on the United States to lift those sanctions. International-Lawyers.Org welcomed the creation of a Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and drew the attention of the Council to the devastating effect of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular on the health of children. It asked panel members to discuss the individual responsibility of Government leaders who imposed those sanctions. Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik noted that unilateral sanctions on Iran placed a great amount of pressure on the population rather than the regime. A substantial amount of citizens suffered because of the lack of medicines and food. Society Studies Centre stated that the international community had taken 40 years to appoint a Special Rapporteur to study the impact of unilateral coercive measures, which had a severe negative effect on the enjoyment of human rights. For example, in Sudan all development indicators had dropped due to the imposed sanctions.

Concluding Remarks

ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Vice-Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that in no way should unilateral steps outside of the United Nations system be accepted. Efforts made by the United Nations International Law Commission to develop draft articles on States’ responsibilities in violations of international law referred to other actions and if anyone attempted to unilaterally introduce coercive sanctions or measures, that was not legitimate under international law. Practitioners and academics should pay more attention to assessing the legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures.

IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, concerning the relationship between the right to self-determination and unilateral coercive measures, said it was deemed to have been violated where people were deprived of their own means of subsistence. In the case of Iran, the medicines were excluded from the sanctions, but 85,000 people suffering from cancer could not get the proper medicines, which indicated the need to think about humanitarian access.

MOHAMEN EZZELDINE ABDEL MONEIM, Member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Associate Professor of International Law and Organization at Suez Canal and Al-Azhar Universities (Egypt), took note of the comments and questions of delegations and civil society organizations. He noted that international peace and security could be best maintained when human suffering was eliminated and when human dignity was preserved.

SEYED MOHAMMAD KAZEM SAJJADPOUR, former Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva and panel moderator, said that coercive measures were counterproductive with respect to all dimensions of human rights. Such measures were illegitimate, illegal, immoral and did not have as their purpose the promotion and protection of human rights. The building blocks of the existing situation should be identified and replaced with new ones. The practice of imposing so many sanctions on developing countries raised the issue of access to medicines as one of the most burning ones. The ideology of sanctions should be defeated mercilessly, as well as the sanctions industry. They should be replaced by a much more humane approach. More debates on various dimensions of the issue of unilateral coercive measures should be held, and all Mandate Holders and Special Procedures should address that issue from their own perspectives. To that end, Mr. Sajjadpour called for more collective efforts at the international level.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record