A/HRC/36/44 34. Firstly, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has no territorial or jurisdictional limitations on the scope of its application. 27 Whereas article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out the obligation of States parties to respect and ensure the rights of all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, the equivalent provision in article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights avoids any reference to “jurisdiction” or “territory”. Furthermore, the latter, using language that has no equivalent in the former, imposes an obligation upon all States to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, with a view to achieving the full realization of the recognized rights on a progressive basis.28 This clearly implies that States parties assume certain obligations of an external or international nature.29 Thus the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can be deemed as setting forth certain extraterritorial obligations for State parties in respect of individuals in third States. 30 35. Secondly, the concept of “jurisdiction”, which is the criterion (and an alternative to “territory”) for the applicability of the legal human rights obligations of States, has been extended over time to address satisfactorily situations where a restrictive application of the territorial or jurisdictional requirements in the relevant treaty would have prevented its application. Thus, jurisdiction has been established with respect to “occupied” territory31 and to territory over which a State assumes some form of “effective control”.32 Taking these findings as a starting point, and applying these to situations where the measures complained of (i.e. sanctions) have extraterritorial effects by their very nature, it may be reasonably argued that a State imposing sanctions should incur liability for violations of human rights even if it does not exercise formal “jurisdiction” or “control” over the population or the territory targeted. This is all the more so since, as previously mentioned, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not contain territorial or jurisdictional limitations. 36. In addition, an argument can be made that such position would be consonant with the rule of customary international law which prohibits a State from allowing its territory to be used to cause damage on the territory of another State, a requirement that has gained 27 28 29 30 31 32 10 M. Sepulveda and C. Courtis, “Are extra-territorial obligations reviewable under the optional protocol to the ICESCR?”, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, vol. 27 (2009), p. 55; see also M. Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 17. The reference to international cooperation is further reiterated in arts. 11 (2) and 15 (4) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Art. 23 states that international action for the achievement of the recognized rights should include such methods as the conclusion of conventions, the adoption of recommendations, the furnishing of technical assistance and the holding of regional meetings and technical meetings for the purpose of consultation and study. M. Craven, “The violence of dispossession”, p. 71. See, for instance, 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 (2011), pp. 1-35. See Gondek, The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalising World: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009); F. Coomans, “The extraterritorial scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, p. 6. See, for example, International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, para. 112, referring to the findings of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that the obligations of Israel under the Covenant applied to all territories and populations under its effective control (see E/C.12/1/Add.90, paras. 15 and 31). See also European Court of Human Rights, Loizidou v. Turkey (application No. 15318/89), judgment on preliminary objections of 23 March 1995, para. 62: “The responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action — whether lawful or unlawful — it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory”.