A/HRC/19/34 contain jurisdictional limitations formulated differently. On the other hand, a number of international human rights instruments do not incorporate jurisdictional limitations on their spatial scope of application. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man contain no provisions specifying jurisdictional limitations on State’s obligations. Moreover, elements of extraterritorial obligations in the field of economic, social and cultural rights – and children’s rights and the rights of persons with disabilities – can also grounded in obligations to perform international cooperation and assistance that are explicitly recognized in the respective international human rights instruments. 70. Another important question that arises in relation to the extraterritorial dimension of human rights and environment is the extent to which international environmental law principles can inform the application of human rights instruments. The duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, for example, is widely recognized as an element of customary law. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has resorted to this principle where environmental damage has crossed boundaries. 71. An indication of the increasing attention paid to extraterritorial obligations is the adoption in September 2011 by a consortium comprising academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations and human rights experts – including some special procedure mandate holders – of the Maastricht principles on extraterritorial obligations of States in the area of economic, social and cultural rights at a conference that took place in Maastricht, Netherlands. The principles detail the status of the extraterritorial dimension of human rights law in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, while at the same time contributing to the progressive development of that dimension. 72. Lastly, the recognition of the extraterritorial obligations of States allows victims of transboundary environmental degradation, including damage to the global commons such as the atmosphere and dangerous climate change, to have access to remedies. Those who are adversely affected by environmental degradation must be able to exercise their rights, irrespective of whether the cause of environmental harm originates in their own State or beyond its boundaries and whether the cause of environmental harm lies in the activities of States or transnational corporations. 73. In summary, there have been important efforts to clarify States’ human rights extraterritorial obligations, including with respect to environmental degradation. The evolution of human rights law in this area has been influenced by principles and tools employed in the environmental protection regime. However, further guidance is needed to inform options for further development of the law in this area. X. Conclusions and recommendations 74. Since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, the relationship between human rights and the environment has received increased attention from States, international institutions and civil society. 75. The Human Rights Council has observed that sustainable development and the protection of the environment can contribute to human well-being and the enjoyment of human rights. Several human rights instruments concluded since the Stockholm Conference have included explicit references to the environment or recognized a right to a healthy environment. Similarly, numerous environmental instruments explicitly articulate their objectives in terms of protection of human health, the environment, and the common heritage of humankind. In addition, a significant number of States 15