A/HRC/11/13 page 6 restore economic momentum. Governments must avoid erecting protectionist barriers or lowering human rights standards for businesses; their short-run gains are illusory and they undermine longer term recovery. For companies, even downsizing and plant closings must be conducted responsibly, and restoring public trust and confidence in business is as much of an immediate challenge as reinventing viable business models. 10. However painful the near-term may be, going forward elements of the business and human rights agenda should become more closely aligned with the world’s overall economic policy agenda than in recent decades. Governments once championing neo-liberal economic doctrines have been reminded starkly that they have duties no other social actor can fulfil, resulting in a recalibration of the balance between market and State. For other countries, the need to deepen their domestic markets will require greater attention to social investments and safety nets, thereby fostering their citizens’ fuller realization of certain economic and social rights. Companies have had to acknowledge that business as usual is not good enough for anybody, including business itself, and that they must better integrate societal concerns into their long-term strategic goals. Society as a whole cries out for remedy where wrong has been done. The terms transparency and accountability resonate more widely than before. And calls for fairness are more insistent. Because the business and human rights agenda is tightly connected to these shifts, it both contributes to and gains from a successful transition toward a more inclusive and sustainable model of economic growth. 11. It is often mused that in every crisis there are opportunities. In operationalizing the “protect, respect and remedy” framework, the Special Representative aims to identify such opportunities in the business and human rights domain and demonstrate how they can be grasped and acted upon. III. THE STATE DUTY TO PROTECT 12. The Council asked the Special Representative to provide views and recommendations on strengthening the fulfilment of the State duty to protect against corporate-related human rights abuse, including through international cooperation. This section summarizes this duty’s content and elaborates upon several business-related policy areas highly relevant to States fulfilling their duty.19 13. The State duty to protect against third party abuse is grounded in international human rights law. The specific language employed in the main United Nations human rights treaties varies, but all include two sets of obligations. First, the treaties commit States parties to refrain from violating the enumerated rights of persons within their territory and/or jurisdiction. Second, the treaties require States to “ensure” (or some functionally equivalent verb) the enjoyment or realization of those rights by rights holders.20 In turn, ensuring that rights holders enjoy their 19 20 Access to remedy is discussed in section IV. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child use “respect and ensure”, with “respect” in the State context, meaning that the State must refrain from violating the rights. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires States parties to “ensure and promote”, and to take appropriate