A/HRC/4/35 page 5 required to see if it can become a useful policy tool. More importantly, because factual claims about corporate obligations in the prior debate were so entangled with normative preferences and institutional interests, the Special Representative has focused on producing a solid and objective evidentiary foundation. However, this has afforded him little opportunity to develop the “views and recommendations” he was invited to submit and which should rightly form part of the conclusion of this mandate. Therefore, the Special Representative would welcome the opportunity of an additional year to build on the extensive work already done and to submit clear options and proposals for the Council’s consideration. I. STATE DUTY TO PROTECT 10. Many claims about business and human rights are deeply contested. But international law firmly establishes that States have a duty to protect against non-State human rights abuses within their jurisdiction, and that this duty extends to protection against abuses by business entities.5 The duty to protect exists under the core United Nations human rights treaties as elaborated by the treaty bodies, and is also generally agreed to exist under customary international law.6 Moreover, the treaty bodies unanimously affirm that this duty requires steps by States to regulate and adjudicate abuses by all social actors including businesses.7 11. The earlier United Nations human rights treaties, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), do not specifically address State duties regarding business. They impose generalized obligations to ensure the enjoyment of rights and prevent non-State abuse. Thus, ICERD requires each State party to prohibit racial discrimination by “any persons, group or organization” (art. 2.1 (d)). And some of the treaties recognize rights that are particularly relevant in business contexts, including rights related to employment, health and indigenous communities. 5 Beyond the national territory, the duty’s scope will vary depending on the State’s degree of control. The United Nations human rights treaty bodies generally view obligations of States parties as applying to areas within their “power or effective control”. 6 States also have duties to respect, promote and fulfil rights, but the most business-relevant is the duty to protect because it focuses on third party abuse. See A/HRC/4/35/Add.1. Where corporations perform public functions or are State-controlled, the secondary rules of State attribution may also hold the State responsible for the abuse. See the International Law Commission’s articles on “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”, adopted in November 2001. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/477/97/ PDF/N0147797.pdf?OpenElement. 7 Drawing on the language of subparagraph (b) of the mandate (as set out in resolution 2005/69 of the Commission on Human Rights), this section uses regulation to refer to treaty body language recommending legislative or other measures designed to prevent or monitor abuse by business enterprises, and adjudication to refer to judicial or other measures to punish or remediate abuse.