This requires respect for the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another State. That aside, there are otherwise no significant international legal impediments to exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction in these circumstances. The obligation of states to legislate for extra-territorial jurisdiction in other circumstances is less clear and there is no consensus on whether the State’s ‘duty to protect’ incorporates a more general duty in this regard. It is even less certain whether such a duty would incorporate the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction in relation to actions of legal, rather than natural persons. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, comments from the UNHRC provide that States should assist each other to bring to justice persons suspected of having committed acts in violation of the ICCPR that are punishable under domestic or international law. Clearly such a statement could be used to support a State seeking to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction for acts contrary to the Covenant, but in the absence of a specific comment on extra-territorial jurisdiction, the scope of any such ‘obligation’ remains less clear.14 Civil Jurisdiction International law does not prescribe rules on the exercise of civil jurisdiction outside of the territory of the State and it is generally recognized that States may legitimately seek to regulate the activities of their nationals when abroad. Some states have established extra-territorial jurisdiction for certain acts committed overseas by TNCs based in their territory. The primary example is the American Alien Tort Claims Act, (ATCA).15 The ATCA is a federal statute that provides courts with jurisdiction to consider all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of which America is a party.16 How useful is the concept of corporate complicity in international crimes to protect human rights? The terms ‘corporate complicity’ is used both in a general sense, to refer to the conduct of a corporation that is indirectly associated with a failure to meet community standards; and in a stricter legal sense, referring to conduct that is so closely associated with a human rights violation as to incur a degree of legal liability for it. Both concepts are useful in protecting human rights. The former provides an opportunity to impose broader societal expectations on the operations of a corporation that go beyond that which a government may impose. The latter provides an avenue for civil or criminal liability for conduct that in some way contributes to the commission of an offence. Indeed the concept is fundamental to the accountability of TNCs since most allegations of human rights violations against companies predominantly focus on complicit conduct rather that direct participation. In addition, liability for complicit conduct may also encompass offences that a company (or legal person) is incapable of committing in its own right, for example, a corporation cannot generally commit a sexual offence, but may be complicit in such an offence.17 14 General Comment No 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, Human Rights Committee, 80th session, 2187th mtg, [8], UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004) at para. 18. 15 Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 USC §1350. The United States Supreme Court in its 2004 decision of Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004), held that the ATCA does not create a cause of action tort for violations of international law. The Supreme Court limited the application of the act to claims resting ‘on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the 18th-century paradigms we have recognized: at 725. The specific paradigms recognised by the Court were offences against ambassadors, violations of safe conduct, and individual actions arising out of prize captures and piracy. 16 17 Clough Ibid note 11 @ 10 - 10 -