A/HRC/19/73 and sanitation, health services, and care and feeding practices, as well as key underlying factors such as poverty, inequity and discrimination against women (including low levels of education among girls)”.44 25. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enshrines the principle of international assistance and cooperation giving rise to extraterritorial obligations for State parties.45 The legal character of these obligations has been recognized by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 3 on the nature of States parties‟ obligations (para. 13).46 Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is of particular relevance for the current study since it stipulates that State Parties “shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes”, in order for everyone, thus including children, to be free from hunger. A similar stipulation on international cooperation is present in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to the right of the child to health (art. 24, para. 4). 26. Articles 22 and 23 of the Covenant have been considered by the Committee to serve as a framework for the activities of international organizations and United Nations specialized agencies.47 A renewed commitment has been sought from international organizations to respect economic, social and cultural rights while designing and implementing their policies and programmes and to assist States in fulfilling their human rights obligations.48 27. An analysis by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has, however, revealed that the aid dedicated by States, international and regional organizations and private actors to nutrition over the period 2004–2007 has stagnated at 350 million USD, the same level since 2000– 2004. Taking a World Bank costing exercise 49 as a starting point, MSF argues that spending dedicated to nutrition must increase considerably and be specifically earmarked if malnutrition is to be overcome.50 Moreover, MSF argues that the money is not being spent on “the right things” or in the most efficient way.51 For example, it emphasizes that if the United States of America were to renounce their current practice of in-kind food aid – consisting of shipping food produced in their country to the target country – and to adopt a policy of purchasing food locally, about 600 million USD could be freed up. 52 The importance of acquiring locally produced food inter alia in the context of the fight against 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 10 UNICEF, Progress for Children, p. 16. See S.I. Skogly, Beyond National Borders: States’ Human Rights Obligations in International Cooperation (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2006); F. Coomans, “The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Work of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 11, No. 1, 29 January 2011, pp. 1–35. Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, paras. 130–134; C. Golay, The Right to Food and Access to Justice: Examples at the National, Regional and International Levels (FAO, 2009), pp. 3536. F. Coomans, “The Extraterritorial Scope”, p. 18. Ibid. See S. Horton et al., Scaling Up Nutrition: What Will it Costs? (World Bank, Washington D.C., 2010). MSF, Malnutrition: How Much is Being Spent? An Analysis of Nutrition Funding Flows: 2004-2007 (Geneva, 2009). See also The Lancet, Maternal and Child Undernutrition Series, January 2008. Ibid. Ibid.