The norm does not provide a list of possible means of cooperation as these will depend on the circumstances of the given situation and can be articulated within an institutional as well non-institutional framework.188 These may include the suspension of membership, or the expulsion from international or regional bodies, as well as the refusal to admit a country to a membership, or the exercise of universal jurisdiction (that is, the jurisdiction of any state to engage in criminal prosecution of individuals that have committed particularly heinous crimes, regardless of the nationality of any persons involved and where the crimes were committed). Duty of abstention According to Article 41(2) of the ILC Draft, all states are under a duty of abstention which in turn consists of two obligations. The first obligation is a duty of collective non-recognition of the legality of situations resulting directly from the serious breach committed. The obligation covers both formal recognition as well as acts which might be interpreted as recognition of the violation of the peremptory norm. It can be put into effect by adopting measures against the state which is committing the breach, such as, for instance, non-recognition of passports or travel documents, withdrawal of consular representation or diplomatic missions, denial of the legal validity of public or official acts, and refusal of membership of international organizations.189 The relevance of this obligation finds support in state practice, in decisions of the ICJ190 and regional courts,191 and in several resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.192 188 Massive violations of human rights, like the situation of apartheid and racial discrimination, as well as the continuing practice of forced population transfer, could constitute the basis for an intervention of UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In this regard see Catherine Phuong, The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 208. 189 James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 684. 190 See e.g. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, 1971 ICJ 16, 21 June 1971, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/files/ case-related/53/053-19710621-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf, para 121-126. 191 Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits Judgment, [1996] ECHR 70, 18 December 1996, available at: http://www. refworld.org/cases,ECHR,402a07c94.html [accessed 7 June 2018]; Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, [2001] ECHR 331, 10 May 2001, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,43de0e7a4.html [accessed 27 Jul 2018], para 89-98. 192 Furthermore, see e.g. UN Security Council Resolution 216 of 12 November 1965, Resolution 217 of 20 November 1975, Resolution 253 of 29 May 1968 and Resolution 277 of 18 March 1970 concerning the situation in southern Rhodesia; UNGA Resolutions 31/6 A of 26 October 1976, 32/105 N of 14 December 1977, 34/93 G 12 December 1979 and Security Council Resolution 402/1976 of 22 December 976, relating to the Bantustans in South Africa. 61