Fundamental human rights and coercive measures: impact and interdependence

  • Alena F. Douhan International University “MITSO”, Kazintse street, 21/3, 220099, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

Abstract

The current article is devoted to the impact of coercive measures both when applied by the UN Security Council and without its authorization (unilateral coercive measures) by states and regional organizations over the enjoyment of human rights. It assesses grounds, justifications and consequences of application of both comprehensive sanctions applied to states and targeted sanctions applied to specific individuals from the legal point of view. This activity often happens in the course of complex, long-term, extreme situations of human rights – that is intractable human rights crisis. States and international organizations feel free to take activity being in breach of international law under the slogan of the need to protect endangered human rights. The article analyses, what measures can be viewed as unilateral coercive measures, assesses the impact of comprehensive measures of the UN Security Council over Iraq’s general population, considers whether and under which conditions means of pressure can be applied over the states or specific individuals or legal entities legally or with reference to state’s consent or application of countermeasures. It is concluded that comprehensive sanctions may legally be taken by the UN Security Council, however their impact on the enjoyment of human rights is huge and negative. Means of pressure (both towards states and individuals) may only be applied by states if they are legal under international law or their illegality is otherwise excluded in accordance with international law. Any other means are prohibited under international law.

Author Biography

Alena F. Douhan, International University “MITSO”, Kazintse street, 21/3, 220099, Minsk, Republic of Belarus

doctor of science (law), docent; vice-principal for educational and international relations, professor at the department of international law

References

  1. 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 (A/HRC/19/33) of 11.01.2012. URL: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-33_en.pdf (date of access: 05.10.2016).
  2. Brzoska M. (ed.). Design and implementation of arms embargoes and travel and aviation related sanctions: results of the “Bonn-Berlin-Process”. Bonn, 2001.
  3. Targeted financial sanctions: a manual for design and implementation. Contributions from the Interlaken Process. Providence, 2001.
  4. Ward C. A. The Counter-Terrorism Committee: its relevance for implementing targeted sanctions. In P. Wallensteen, C. Staibano (eds). International sanctions: between words and wars in the global system. London ; New York, 2005.
  5. Morrison F. L. The role of regional organizations in the enforcement of international law. Allocation of law enforcement authority in the international system : proc. of Intern. symp. of the Kiel Inst. of Intern. Law, 23–25 March 1994. Berlin, 1995. P. 39–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/67.1.509.
  6. Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for Future. URL: https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170-sanctions/41947-iraq-sanctions.html (date of access: 01.03.2016).
  7. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights of 10.08.2015, A/HRC/30/45. URL: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/177/05/PDF/G1517705.pdf (date of access: 01.03.2016).
  8. Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts with commentaries. Yearb. Int. Law Comm. 2001. Vol. 2, part 2. P. 31–143.
  9. Certain expenses of the United Nations (article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter): advisory opinion of 20 July 1962. The Hague, 1962. P. 151–309.
  10. Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) : judgment of 27 June 1986. The Hague, 1986. P. 14 –150.
  11. Kunig P. Intervention, prohibition of. In Max Plank encyclopedia of international law. URL: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1434?rskey=0Q4jWR&result=3&prd=OPIL (date of access: 22.02.2016).
  12. Walter C. Security Council control over regional action. In Max Plank Yearbook of the United Nations law. London, 1997. Vol. 1. P. 129 –193.
  13. Geyrhalter D. Friedenssicherung durch Regionalorganizationen ohne Beschluß des Sicherheitsrates. Münster [etc.], 2001. (Kölner Schriften zum internationalen und europäischen Recht; Bd. 1).
  14. Jamnerjad M., Wood M. The principle of non-intervention // Leiden J. Int. Law. 2009. Vol. 22, issue 2. P. 345–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156509005858.
  15. Nolte G. Intervention by invitation. In Max Plank encyclopedia of international law. URL: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/582686/publicationFile/156225/NolteInterventionInvitation.pdf (date of access: 15.11.2013).
  16. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. The Hague, 1970. P. 3–113.
  17. General comment № 31 : the nature of the General Legal Obligation imposed by States Parties by the Covenant, 24 March 2004. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/419/56/PDF/G0441956.pdf?OpenElement (date of access: 17.09.2016).
  18. Frowein J. A. Reactions by not-directly affected states to breaches of public international law. Recueil des cours de l’Acad. de Droit Intern. de La Haye. 1994. Tome 248. P. 345– 437.
  19. Wolfrum R. Der Beitrag regionaler Abmachungen zur Friedenssicherung: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Ztchr. für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. 1993. Band 53. S. 576–599.
  20. Simma B. Does the UN Charter provide an adequate legal basis for individual or collective responses to violations of obligations erga omnes. The future of international law enforcement: new scenarios, new law? : proc. of Int. Symp. of the Kiel Inst. of Int. Law, March 25 to 27, 1992. Berlin, 1993. P. 125–146.
  21. Tams C. J. All’s well that ends well? Comments on the ILC’s articles on state responsibility. Ztchr. für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. 2002. Band 62. P. 759–808.
  22. Crawford J. The International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility: introduction, text and commentaries. Cambridge, 2007.
  23. Vaur-Chaumette A.-L. The international community as a whole. In J. Crawford, A. Pellet, S. Olleson (eds). The law of international responsibility. Oxford, 2010. P. 1023–1028.
  24. Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory: request for an advisory opinion. The Hague, 2004. P. 136 –203.
  25. Interpretation of peace treaties: advisory opinion. The Hague, 1950. P. 65–78.
  26. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, M. Scheinin : 29 Jan. 2007, A/HRC/4/26. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/105/07/PDF/G0710507.pdf?OpenElement (date of access: 05.10.2016).
  27. Cameron I. Protecting legal rights: on the (in)security of targeted sanctions. In P. Wallensteen, C. Staibano (eds). International sanctions: between words and wars in the global system. London, 2005. Р. 141–206.
  28. General Comment No. 29, article 4 : derogations during a state of emergency : CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 In L. Holmström, L. Karlbrink (eds). General comments or recommendations adopted by United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Lund, 2003. Vol. 1. P. 107–115.
  29. Focal point for de-listing. De-listing requests. URL: https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sanctions/delisting/de-listing-request-stats (date of access: 01.03.2016).
  30. Status of cases. URL: https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sc/ombudsperson/status-of-cases (date of access: 01.03.2016).
  31. Bianchi A. Assessing the effectiveness of the UN Security Council’s anti-terrorism measures: the quest for legitimacy and cohesion. Eur. J. Int. Law. 2006. Vol. 17, issue 5. P. 881–919.
  32. International status of South-West Africa: advisory opinion. The Hague, 1950. P. 128–145.
  33. Reinisch A. Developing human rights and humanitarian law of the Security Council for the imposition of economic sanctions. Am. J. Int. Law. 2001. Vol. 95, issue 4. P. 851–872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2674632.
  34. Herik L. van den. The Security Council’s targeted sanctions regimes. Leiden J. Int. Law. 2007. Vol. 20, issue 4. P. 797–807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156507004451.
  35. Orakhelashvili A. Peremptory norms in international law. New York ; Oxford, 2008.
  36. Ануфриева Л. П., Бекяшев Д. К., Бекяшев К. А. и др. Международное публичное право / под ред. К. А. Бекяшева. 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. М., 1999 [Anufrieva L. P., Bekyashev D. K., Bekyashev K. A. et al. Public International Law. 2 nd ed., revised. and ext. Moscow, 1999 (in Russ.)].
  37. Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), judgment of 3 Febr. 2006, Separate opinion of judge Dugard. The Hague, 2006. P. 86 –94.
  38. Cassese A. Ex iniuria ius oritus: are we moving toward international legitimation of forcible humanitarian countermeasures in the world community? Eur. J. Int. Law. 1999. Vol. 10, issue 1. P. 23–30.
  39. Kelsen H. The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems. London, 1964.
Published
2018-10-15
Keywords: unilateral coercive measures, sanctions, targeted sanctions, human rights, negative impact
How to Cite
Douhan, A. F. (2018). Fundamental human rights and coercive measures: impact and interdependence. Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations, 1, 67-77. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/internationalRelations/article/view/1307
Issue
No 1 (2017): Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations
Section
International Law

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)