A/HRC/37/39 Secretary-General and the fact-finding mission (see for example A/HRC/22/63, A/HRC/25/38, A/HRC/28/44, A/HRC/31/42 and A/HRC/34/39). The reports detailed how the settlements are extensively altering the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and fundamentally threatening the Palestinians’ right to selfdetermination. The violations of human rights associated with the settlements are pervasive and devastating, reaching every facet of Palestinian life. Owing to settlement development and infrastructure, Palestinians suffer from restrictions on freedom of religion, movement and education; their rights to land and water; access to livelihoods and their right to an adequate standard of living; their rights to family life; and many other fundamental human rights. B. Obligations of States for business and human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 30. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/17/31), which were unanimously endorsed by all States Members of the Human Rights Council in its resolution 17/4, set out the international human rights law obligations of States concerning business enterprises. They do not create new legal obligations, but rather clarify the implications of relevant existing international human rights standards, and provide practical guidance on how they can be operationalized.11 These include the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, which includes business enterprises. States may be held responsible for abuse by business enterprises where the conduct can be attributed to them (for example, in the case of a State-owned enterprise) or where States fail to take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress abuse. 12 31. The Guiding Principles specifically address the issue of business operations in conflict-affected areas, which includes situations of occupation. In conflict-affected areas, the Guiding Principles recognize that the “host State”13 may not be able to adequately protect human rights because of a lack of effective control or involvement in abuses itself. 14 In these situations, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises acknowledges that “home States”15 of transnational corporations have a crucial role to play. In the context of the Israeli settlements, Israel as the occupying Power is considered to have obligations equivalent to those of a “host State”.16 Given the direct involvement of Israel in establishing, maintaining and expanding the settlements, OHCHR considers that the role of homes States of transnational corporations is essential in assisting both corporations and Israel to ensure that businesses are not involved in human rights abuses.17 32. States’ obligations specifically concerning business operations connected to Israeli settlements have been the subject of a number of United Nations reports and resolutions (for example, A/HRC/22/63, para. 117 and A/HRC/34/39, paras. 34-39, and Human Rights Council resolutions 28/26 and 34/31, para. 13 (b)). In its resolution 2334 (2016), the Security Council called upon all States to distinguish between the territory of Israel and the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 See Frequently Asked Questions about the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (OHCHR, New York and Geneva, 2014), p. 8. Guiding Principle 1. A “host State” is defined as the country in which a business operates. See Frequently Asked Questions about the Guiding Principles (see footnote 11), p. 23. See Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the context of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 6 June 2014, p. 3. A “home State” is defined as a State where a company is incorporated or has its headquarters or primary seat. See Frequently Asked Questions about the Guiding Principles (see footnote 11), p. 23. The Working Group recognized that the term “host State” is ambiguous in situations of occupation, and that it would be more accurate to refer to the State that exercises effective control over an occupied territory as having obligations equivalent to those of a “host State”. See statement of the Working Group (see footnote 14), pp. 6-8. In accordance with the statement of the Working Group, ibid., pp. 3-4 and 7. 9