A/HRC/29/25 exploitation, the obligations may appear to be somewhat distorted owing to the sometimes complex relationships that exist between Governments and the private sector. Governments may engage in for-profit ventures through State-owned or State-run companies, blurring non-profit and for-profit interests and the role of the State in ensuring a level playing ground for both sectors. Moreover, the close relationship that exists between Governments and the private sector is one that the Special Rapporteur has highlighted previously as creating, in some instances, undue advantages for business at the expense of other sectors of society (see A/69/365, paras. 10–12). 14. States are obligated to protect and facilitate the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of natural resource exploitation, including by ensuring that business interests do not violate these rights. To discharge their duties in that respect, States should, among other things, enact robust national laws that stipulate the rights and responsibilities of all, create independent and effective enforcement, oversight and adjudicatory mechanisms, ensure effective remedies for violations of rights and promote awareness of, and access to information about, relevant policies and practices related to natural resource exploitation. 15. States also have an obligation to prevent conflict before it starts, including by creating a legal environment that promotes transparency and fairness. The area of land rights, for example, is often key. The absence of legal frameworks that clearly spell out land rights creates opportunities for arbitrary expropriation or land grabbing, which in turn can lead to conflict. Opaque procedures for granting exploitation licences and concessions aggravate the situation and often fuel social protests. 16. States that host natural resource exploitation operations (“host States”) have to contend not only with powerful corporations exerting their influence, but also with the socalled “States of origin”, whose economies stand to benefit from the taxes and other remittances arising from corporations’ profits. States of origin will therefore make significant efforts to facilitate opportunities in foreign markets for companies domiciled in their territory. An indication of this elevation of business interests in international relations is that, in some countries, the trade and investment portfolios are being merged with the foreign affairs and development agendas of Governments. In principle, States have a legitimate interest in pursuing channels that open up business interests for their citizens. But undue deference to business interests at the expense of other legitimate interests, such as human rights, is a source of acute concern. 17. The central role of corporations in natural resource exploitation means that they can potentially wield enormous power and influence over host States, rendering authorities unwilling to intervene in their interests. Corporations gain access to the corridors of power and often have the ear of key officials (sometimes through unethical means) and are therefore in a position to influence decisions in their favour at the expense of opposing views of other interested parties, including affected communities. The increasing globalization of access to markets underscores the need to regulate the natural resource exploitation sector at the international level to ensure the preservation of all rights, including peaceful assembly and association rights. 18. The complexities of influence between the host State and States of origin is replicated among corporations, where parent companies domiciled in one State may have subsidiaries in other countries exercising various degrees of influence on the policies and practices of the latter entities. Furthermore, international and national financial institutions often have a significant stake in natural resource exploitation activities that they may be supporting financially. Their actions or inaction, primarily through the leverage they have as financiers, could have an impact on the human rights of affected communities, including peaceful assembly and association rights. The Special Rapporteur subscribes to the premise that international human rights law ascribes the primary duties to States, acting individually 7