132 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session (4) Paragraph 1 (a) deals with the prohibition of the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, including the express prohibition of the use of force in Article 2, paragraph 4. It excludes forcible measures from the ambit of permissible countermeasures under chapter II. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”,763 and went on to state that: (5) The prohibition of forcible countermeasures is spelled out in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, by which the General Assembly proclaimed that “States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force”.756 The prohibition is also consistent with the prevailing doctrine as well as a number of authoritative pronouncements of international judicial757 and other bodies.758 Analogies can be drawn from other elements of general international law. For example, paragraph 1 of article 54 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) stipulates unconditionally that “[s]tarvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”.765 Likewise, the final sentence of paragraph 2 of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence”. (6) Paragraph 1 (b) provides that countermeasures may not affect obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights. In the “Naulilaa” arbitration, the tribunal stated that a lawful countermeasure must be “limited by the requirements of humanity and the rules of good faith applicable in relations between States”.759 The Institut de droit international in its 1934 resolution stated that in taking countermeasures a State must “abstain from any harsh measure which would be contrary to the laws of humanity or the demands of the public conscience”.760 This has been taken further as a result of the development since 1945 of international human rights. In particular, the relevant human rights treaties identify certain human rights which may not be derogated from even in time of war or other public emergency.761 (7) In its general comment No. 8 (1997) the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights discussed the effect of economic sanctions on civilian populations and especially on children. It dealt both with the effect of measures taken by international organizations, a topic which falls outside the scope of the present articles,762 as well as with countermeasures imposed by individual States or groups of States. It stressed that “whatever the circumstances, such sanctions should always take full account of the provisions of the International Covenant on 756 General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annex, first principle. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe also contains an explicit condemnation of forcible measures. Part of Principle II of the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States embodied in the first “Basket” of that Final Act reads: “Likewise [the participating States] will also refrain in their mutual relations from any act of reprisal by force.” 757 See especially Corfu Channel, Merits (footnote 35 above), p. 35; and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (footnote 36 above), p. 127, para. 249. 758 See, e.g., Security Council resolutions 111 (1956) of 19 January 1956, 171 (1962) of 9 April 1962, 188 (1964) of 9 April 1964, 316 (1972) of 26 June 1972, 332 (1973) of 21 April 1973, 573 (1985) of 4 October 1985 and 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000. See also General Assembly resolution 41/38 of 20 November 1986. 759 “Naulilaa” (see footnote 337 above), p. 1026. 760 Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, vol. 38 (1934), p. 710. 761 See article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 762 See below, article 59 and commentary. it is essential to distinguish between the basic objective of applying political and economic pressure upon the governing elite of a country to persuade them to conform to international law, and the collateral infliction of suffering upon the most vulnerable groups within the targeted country.764 (8) Paragraph 1 (c) deals with the obligations of humanitarian law with regard to reprisals and is modelled on article 60, paragraph 5, of the 1969 Vienna Convention.766 The paragraph reflects the basic prohibition of reprisals against individuals, which exists in international humanitarian law. In particular, under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1929, the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) of 1977, reprisals are prohibited against defined classes of protected persons, and these prohibitions are very widely accepted.767 (9) Paragraph 1 (d) prohibits countermeasures affecting obligations under peremptory norms of general international law. Evidently, a peremptory norm, not subject to derogation as between two States even by treaty, cannot be derogated from by unilateral action in the form of countermeasures. Subparagraph (d) reiterates for the purposes of the present chapter the recognition in article 26 that the circumstances precluding wrongfulness elaborated in chapter V of Part One do not affect the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law. The reference to “other” obligations under 763 E/C.12/1997/8, para. 1. Ibid., para. 4. 765 See also paragraph 2 of article 54 (“objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”) and article 75. See also Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). 766 Paragraph 5 of article 60 of the 1969 Vienna Convention precludes a State from suspending or terminating for material breach any treaty provision “relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties”. This paragraph was added at the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties on a vote of 88 votes in favour, none against and 7 abstentions. 767 See K. J. Partsch, “Reprisals”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, R. Bernhardt, ed. (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2000), vol. 4, p. 200, at pp. 203–204; and S. Oeter, “Methods and means of combat”, D. Fleck, ed., op. cit. (footnote 409 above) p. 105, at pp. 204–207, paras. 476–479, with references to relevant provisions. 764