Remarks by the President of the General Assembly?
H.E. Ms. Annalena Baerbock
at the?Informal meeting to commemorate and promote?
the International Day against Unilateral Coercive Measures
4 December?2025
[As delivered]
Excellencies,
Distinguished delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today, we commemorate the first-ever International Day against Unilateral Coercive Measures.
On 16 June, the General Assembly adopted resolution 79/293, proclaiming this international day.
A total number of 116 Member States voted in favour, 51 against, and 6 abstained¡ªunderscoring both the importance of today¡¯s discussion and the need for a frank and open dialogue.
And also, if I may say so, how important it is to be precise about what we are talking about.
As there is a very important difference between unilateral coercive measures, which we are speaking about today, and measures as outlined in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter which are aimed at upholding international law or preventing an aggravation of the situation.
As the name itself states, ¡°unilateral¡± refers to measures taken by one actor alone. And their aim is to coerce another actor.
This is fundamentally different from measures adopted collectively by the Security Council or regional organizations in accordance with the Charter with the aim to uphold the Charter and to uphold international law.
And as often, the Charter is clear: under Articles 40 and 41, the authority to impose such measures lies with the Security Council.
Article 52 of the Charter also allows regional organisations to deal with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as appropriate for regional action provided that their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
And in this understanding of an integrated international architecture, regional organisations are playing an important role to protect international law,peace and security in their regions.
For example, in line with Article 52 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter, the African Union¡¯s Lom¨¦ and Accra Declarations, among other regional declarations, guide sanctions and punitive measures on its Member States when necessary and when agreed together.
Therefore, we need to distinguish between these measures agreed by the relevant bodies of the international community, intended to uphold international law, on the one hand.
And on the other hand, unilateral coercive measures, imposed by a single State, in contravention of international law, which is very clear as well.
As Member States agreed in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations, and in accordance with the Charter, that ¡°No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantage of any kind¡±.
Furthermore, the Declaration on the Right to Development recognized the right to development as an inalienable human right, one that requires full respect for international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States.
And most recently, the Pact for the Future strongly urged Member States to refrain from promulgating and applying unilateral economic measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Unilateral coercive measures are not just abstract policies.
The Secretary-General¡¯s latest report on unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries highlights the wide-ranging consequences of unilateral coercive measures.
They have real impacts on people¡¯s lives, including:
- Shortages of essential food and health items, with impacts on the most vulnerable;
- Disruptions to humanitarian assistance, especially during emergencies;
- And slower GDP growth and higher inflation, ultimately hindering the advancement of sustainable development.
And these negative impacts of these measures extend far beyond the targeted countries.
They might ripple outward by disrupting regional and global supply chains.
The report of the Secretary-General and especially the responses by the Member States also make clear that if we are precise about what we are speaking about, despite diverging views on part of the topic, there is a common ground and understanding among Member States.
Member States agree on the principle that any restrictive measure or sanctions should always be in line with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter and international law.
And they would also agree on the fact that such measures and sanctions would not be needed if all Member States would comply with the principles of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter and their obligations under international law including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
So today¡¯s debate underlines again how important it is in these times not only to engage in dialogue together, but also to be precise when we are doing so.
It reminds us of the need to choose multilateralism over unilateralism,
and dialogue over coercion.
Only by doing so can we uphold the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter, strengthen international law, and build a more just and cooperative international order.
Watch