A/HRC/26/31 impose unilateral obligations on host States, so that it becomes difficult to bring TNCs into their domestic legal system, including the judicial system. Moreover, the principles of limited liability and separate legal personalities are often relied upon by parent companies to absolve themselves of any liability of their subsidiaries operating in various jurisdictions.79 Even where remedies against domestic companies exist, their enforcement is often absent or lax, and companies are not penalized for non-compliance. Consumers should be able to seek remedies against food companies, irrespective of the country of origin of the parent company. States should therefore clarify under domestic law the liability of the parent company and its subsidiaries. 55. Remedies for violations of the right to health should be available from States as well. In cases where States have not enshrined the right to health obligation in the domestic legal system, adjudicatory mechanisms should exist for people to claim remedies against the State and hold it accountable for failing to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health. In cases where States neglect to take steps to fulfil international commitments to reduce the burden of NCDs, including diet-related NCDs, people should have access to domestic and thereafter international mechanisms to claim remedies against States for not taking steps towards this goal. Ensuring access to a range of remedies, in the form of restitution, compensation, satisfaction or guarantees of non-repetition, is an effective way to hold State and non-State actors accountable for violations of the right to health. IX. International assistance and cooperation 56. Under the right to health framework, States should extend their assistance and cooperation to full realization of the right to health. While entering into international agreements, States should ensure that such agreements do not negatively impact on the enjoyment of the right to health. 57. Giving primacy to international trade over the right to health has widespread repercussions on public health.80 For instance, under international trade agreements, States have sometimes expressed concerns about requirements in other States’ domestic nutrition labelling policies, which have been instituted to attain public health goals.81 Such practices may restrict the policy space of developing countries in favour of attracting FDI and avoiding economic sanctions.82 Bilateral investment treaties may subvert existing internationally agreed upon guidelines and lower tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, allowing freer import and export of unhealthy food products. For instance, free trade agreements have been directly linked to an increased consumption of soft drinks.83 58. Investment agreements may also contain provisions that allow States to be sued for taking measures to protect public health that may adversely impact investments of the contracting party and private corporations. The mere threat of onerous and expensive 79 80 81 82 83 Gwynne Skinner et al., The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business (ICAR/CORE/ECCJ, 2013), p. 11. Available from http://accountabilityroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Third-Pillar-Access-to-JudicialRemedies-for-Human-Rights-Violation-by-Transnational-Business.pdf. Kelley Lee and Meri Koivusalo, “Trade and health: is the health community ready for action?”, PLOS Medicine, vol. 2, No. 1 (2005), p. 14. World Trade Organization, “Members discuss guidelines for trade-friendly regulation and STOP sign for ‘junk food’”, 13 March 2013, available from http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news13_e/tbt_13mar13_e.htm. WHO, Trade, Trade Agreements and Non-Communicable Diseases in the Pacific Islands (2013), p. 10. “Manufacturing epidemics” (see footnote 10 above), p.6. 19