A/HRC/28/65 4. Permanent peoples’ tribunal 58. In recent years, the human rights violations perpetrated by private actors, including those committed by TNCs, have been subject to several Permanent Peoples’ Tribunals. Of particular relevance to the right to food are the tribunals on: Agrochemical Transnational Corporations (2001), Neoliberal Policies and European Transnationals in Latin America and the Caribbean (2008), the Role of Transnationals Corporations in Columbia (2006– 2008), and Global Corporations and Human Wrongs (2000).63 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunals are only beneficial in raising public awareness of human rights abuses that otherwise cannot be heard. They offer no legal remedy, but are important politically. 5. Extraterritoriality in the United Nations treaty bodies and special procedures 59. United Nations treaty bodies and special procedures have addressed extraterritorial human rights issues in their various reports, including for the universal periodic review and general comments. According to a recent report from the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in the last seven years the various mechanisms of OHCHR have touched upon extraterritorial obligations some 26 times. In so doing, these bodies have played an important role in developing and consolidating an understanding of how to apply the concepts of jurisdiction to the actions and omissions of States. 64 They expressed their concerns and made recommendations on a number of issues addressing extraterritorial obligations, especially on the human rights impact of the exploitation of natural resources in third countries and the role of TNCs in large-scale development projects with respect to forced land evictions, all of which impact directly on the right to food. 60. General comments do not establish legal obligations, but elaborate on the practical implications of those obligations. The treaty bodies, however, have legally binding powers. In February 2013, the Committee of the Rights of the Child adopted general comment No. 16 (2013) on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights to elaborate on the practical implications of those obligations. The Committee also noted that the existing instruments and guidance did not sufficiently address the particular situation and needs of children. 65 The treaty bodies have also contributed to the protection of the rights of groups such as indigenous people and small-scale farmers, whose rights are routinely disregarded by foreign States and private actors based in third countries. Moreover, in recent years a number special procedure mandate holders have sent various communications to States concerning the application of extraterritorial obligations, especially in cases involving allegations of corporate abuse of human rights in host States. 6. Codes of conducts and voluntary guidelines 61. Recent years have witnessed various attempts to regulate the impact of business activities on human rights outside of the territorial boundaries of the home State. Notably the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) underlined that States “should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations” and clarified the responsibility of TNCs and other business enterprises to respect human rights. Similarly The United Nations Global Compact (2000) urges TNCs to respect workers’ rights and 63 64 65 See www.tni.org/archives/peoplestribunal-lima. Global Economy, Global Rights: A practitioner’s guide for interpreting human rights obligations in the global economy (2014), p. 9. See Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluding observations on Australia, CRC/C/AUS/CO/4, paras. 27 and 28, and Turkey, CRC/C/TUR/CO/2-3, paras. 22 and 23. 17