A/HRC/29/39 establishing personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, identifying the correct set of legal rules to apply to the case and problems relating to enforcement) and many practical and logistical issues associated with gathering information and the availability of witnesses. 26. The current debate about the appropriate use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of cases of business-related human rights abuses takes place against this background. A key aim of project component 2 will be to find ways to build on existing State practice, including from other regulatory areas, to propose practical solutions to challenges that are frequently encountered in cross-border cases. 27. Project component 2 takes, as its starting point, Guiding Principle 2, which calls upon States to set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations. In the commentary to the Principle, it is noted that States have adopted a range of approaches in this regard, including the establishment of criminal regimes that allow for prosecutions based on the nationality of the perpetrator no matter where the offence occurs. It is also noted that various factors may contribute to the perceived and actual reasonableness of States’ actions, for example whether they are grounded in multilateral agreement. A number of the treaty bodies that monitor the implementation of the core international human rights treaties have also taken the view that the responsibilities of State parties under the conventions include taking appropriate steps to ensure that the actions of enterprises domiciled in their territory or jurisdiction do not infringe on human rights in other countries.4 28. Further important context for project component 2 is provided by Guiding Principle 7, which states that because the risk of gross human rights abuses is heightened in conflictaffected areas, States should help ensure that business enterprises operating in those contexts are not involved with such abuses, including by ensuring that their current policies, legislation, regulations and enforcement measures are effective in addressing the risk of business involvement in gross human rights abuses. Furthermore, Guiding Principle 26 stipulates that States should consider ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of remedy. In the commentary to Principle 26, it is noted that legal barriers can arise, for example, , where claimants face a denial of justice in a host State and cannot access to the home State courts regardless of the merits of the claim. 29. Previous research into State practice in other regulatory areas has helped to shed light on the use by States of extraterritorial jurisdiction and domestic measures with extraterritorial implications in practice. 5 In recent years, States have been increasingly prepared to use direct extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to criminal activity such as 4 5 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights general comment No. 15 and the Committee’s statement on the obligations of States parties regarding the corporate sector and economic, social and cultural rights (E/C.12/2011/1) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child general comment No. 16. A number of treaty bodies have recommended that States take appropriate measures to regulate the extraterritorial conduct of enterprises domiciled in their territory or jurisdiction (see, for example, CERD/C/AUS/CO/15-17, para. 13; CRC/C/AZE/CO/3-4, para. 29; CRC/C/BHR/CO/2-3, para. 21; CRC/C/ITA/CO/3-4, para. 25; and CRC/C/KOR/CO/3-4, para. 27). A number of human rights advocates and experts have also endorsed the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including in the context of non-State actors. While these principles have not been endorsed or adopted by the United Nations system, they provide information about the views of many human rights experts on the issue of extraterritorial responsibilities under human rights treaties. Jennifer Zerk, “Extraterritorial jurisdiction: lessons for the business and human rights sphere from six regulatory areas”, June 2010 (www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_59_zerk.pdf). 9