CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 State party’s obligations under the Covenant and are therefore incompatible with its provisions. The State party argues that Canada had no article 2 (1) obligation in relation to the authors to ensure their Covenant rights for the following reasons. The authors have not alleged that Canadian State actors, whether inside or outside Canada, committed violations of the State party’s obligations to respect the rights set out in the Covenant. The only connection between Canada and the extraterritorial events alleged by the authors is the fact that Green Park International and Green Mount International were incorporated in a Canadian jurisdiction. Aside from this, the authors have not alleged that either of these two non-State actors has any connection to any level of government in Canada. The link of the two corporations with Canada did not create a situation in which the authors were subject to Canada’s jurisdiction at the relevant time. 4.17 At the time of the events in question, the authors were neither within Canada’s territory nor subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore Canada could not have had obligations to ensure their Covenant rights. Furthermore, the authors have been explicit that these events, and thus the affected authors themselves, were extraterritorial to Canada at the time of the alleged violations. Canada’s obligation to ensure the Covenant rights cannot apply to individuals outside of Canadian territory because of the mere fact that two legal entities technically incorporated in Canada were allegedly involved in activities that affected those individuals. Such an interpretative approach would be outside the scope of the Covenant. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights recall in this respect that “at present, States are not generally required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction. Nor are they generally prohibited from doing so, provided there is a recognized jurisdictional basis”.10 The authors’ reliance on concluding observations on States parties’ reports by the Committee and other treaty bodies to establish novel extraterritorial obligations is mistaken. The State party understands that in making such comments the Committee and other treaty bodies have been encouraging certain States parties to choose to exercise their permissive prescriptive jurisdiction and regulate certain extraterritorial activities of corporations domiciled in their territory or jurisdiction. The comments by treaty bodies are carefully qualified to recognize that the scope of any existing extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction is significantly constrained by general principles of public international law. The comments do not appear to be making the assertion that States parties to the Covenant or other international human rights instruments are actually obligated to exercise that prescriptive jurisdiction. 4.18 As to other materials cited by the authors, the State party contends that the reference to the draft articles on State responsibility of the International Law Commission is irrelevant, as the authors do not allege that certain actions of another State should be attributed to Canada for the purpose of the obligation to respect under article 2 (1) of the Covenant. As to the Maastricht Principles, they are a statement by prominent scholars conveying their view of how extraterritorial obligations should be interpreted in relation to economic, social and cultural rights, and they are highly limited in their persuasive value for the interpretation of the Covenant. 4.19 As to the authors’ claims that Canada failed to provide them with an effective remedy, the State party argues that in the absence of any arguable violations by Canada of substantive Covenant rights, Canada cannot have an obligation under article 2 (3) to provide an effective remedy. Even if the authors had substantiated that they are victims of violations of their substantive rights, those violations would not engage Canada’s responsibility under article 2 (1), as explained above, and therefore any obligation under article 2 (3) to provide an effective remedy would not apply to Canada. 4.20 That said, the State party understands the human rights and other concerns that can be raised by the transnational activities of business enterprises; recognizes that action is required and works with a range of interlocutors to promote corporate social responsibility; and promotes international standards on business and human rights in a number of multilateral forums. 10 GE.17-21900 See A/HRC/17/31, commentary to principle 2. 9