E/C.12/GC/24 not obstruct another State from complying with its obligations under the Covenant. 76 This duty is particularly relevant to the negotiation and conclusion of trade and investment agreements or of financial and tax treaties, 77 as well as to judicial cooperation. 2. Extraterritorial obligation to protect 30. The extraterritorial obligation to protect requires States parties to take steps to prevent and redress infringements of Covenant rights that occur outside their territories due to the activities of business entities over which they can exercise control, especially in cases where the remedies available to victims before the domestic courts of the State where the harm occurs are unavailable or ineffective. 31. This obligation extends to any business entities over which States parties may exercise control, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and applicable international law. 78 Consistent with the admissible scope of jurisdiction under general international law, States may seek to regulate corporations that are domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction: this includes corporations incorporated under their laws, or which have their statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business on their national territory.79 States parties may also utilize incentives short of the direct imposition of obligations, such as provisions in public contracts favouring business entities that have put in place robust and effective human rights due diligence mechanisms, in order to contribute to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights at home and abroad. 32. Whereas States parties would not normally be held directly internationally responsible for a violation of economic, social and cultural rights caused by a private entity’s conduct (except in the three scenarios recalled in para. 11 of the present general comment), a State party would be in breach of its obligations under the Covenant where the violation reveals a failure by the State to take reasonable measures that could have prevented the occurrence of the event. The responsibility of the State can be engaged in such circumstances even if other causes have also contributed to the occurrence of the violation,80 and even if the State had not foreseen that a violation would occur, provided such a violation was reasonably foreseeable. 81 For instance, considering the welldocumented risks associated with the extractive industry, particular due diligence is required with respect to mining-related projects and oil development projects.82 33. In discharging their duty to protect, States parties should also require corporations to deploy their best efforts to ensure that entities whose conduct those corporations may influence, such as subsidiaries (including all business entities in which they have invested, whether registered under the State party’s laws or under the laws of another State) or business partners (including suppliers, franchisees and subcontractors), respect Covenant rights. Corporations domiciled in the territory and/or jurisdiction of States parties should be required to act with due diligence to identify, prevent and address abuses to Covenant rights 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 8 (1997) on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights; and articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, art. 50 (countermeasures by a State or group of States in response to an internationally wrongful act by another State may not affect “obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights”). See A/HRC/19/59/Add.5. See, for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 14, para. 39; or general comment No. 15, paras. 31-33. The Maastricht Principles were the subject of explanatory commentaries; see Olivier De Schutter and others, “Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 34 (2012), pp. 1084-1171. See recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, appendix, para. 13. International Court of Justice, Case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) (judgment of 26 February 2007), I.C.J. Reports, paras. 430 and 461. Articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, art. 23, commentary. See A/HRC/8/5/Add.2.