A/HRC/25/53 the State had “fallen short of the minimum conduct expected of governments.”57 The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights has stated that “effective enforcement of the environmental protection measures in relation to private parties, particularly extractive companies and industries… is essential to avoid the State’s international responsibility for violating the human rights of the communities affected by activities detrimental to the environment.”58 And the European Court has held that States are obligated to take positive steps to protect against environmental harm to the right to private and family life, whether the pollution was caused by governmental or private action. In either case, “the applicable principles are broadly similar.”59 3. Obligations relating to transboundary environmental harm 62. Many grave threats to the enjoyment of human rights are due to transboundary environmental harm, including problems of global scope such as ozone depletion and climate change. This raises the question of whether States have obligations to protect human rights against the extraterritorial environmental effects of actions taken within their territory. 63. There is no obvious reason why a State should not bear responsibility for actions that otherwise would violate its human rights obligations, merely because the harm was felt beyond its borders. Nevertheless, the application of human rights obligations to transboundary environmental harm is not always clear. One difficulty is that human rights instruments address jurisdiction in different ways. Some, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter, contain no explicit jurisdictional limitations, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights may even provide an explicit basis for extraterritorial obligations (art. 2, para. 1). But other treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, limit at least some of their protections to individuals subject to or within the jurisdiction of the State, leaving it unclear how far their protections extend beyond the State’s territory. Another problem is that many human rights bodies have not addressed extraterritoriality in the context of environmental harm.60 64. Nevertheless, most of the sources reviewed that have addressed the issue do indicate that States have obligations to protect human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, from the extraterritorial environmental effects of actions taken within their territory. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has interpreted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as requiring its parties “to refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries” (general comment No. 15, para. 31), and has stated that parties should also take steps to prevent third parties within their jurisdiction, such as their own citizens and companies, from violating the rights to water and health in other countries (general comment No. 15, para. 33; and general comment No. 14, para. 39). Several special rapporteurs have adopted similar interpretations. In 2011, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights joined with 57 58 59 60 Ogoniland case, paras. 57, 58. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Second report on the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, 2011, para. 315. Available at https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/docs/pdf/defenders2011.pdf. See generally IACHR report, sect. IV.A. Lopez Ostra v. Spain, No. 16798/90, 9 December 1994, para. 51; Hatton v. United Kingdom, No. 36022/97, 8 July 2003, para. 98. See, for example, Council of Europe, Manual, p. 25. 17