Amicus Brief – Human Rights and Climate Change 112 See e.g. Report of Independent Expert Knox, note 90 above, paras. 79-81; Council of Europe, ‘Manual on Human Rights and the Environment’ (2012), available at www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DH_DEV_Manual_Environment_Eng.pdf; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System’ (2010) 35 American Indian Law Review. 113 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, SERAC v. Nigeria, Case No. 155/96. 114 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4. 115 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [80], The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States parties to the Covenant (2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 8. 116 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6. Article 6: Right to life, 30 April 1982, paras. 2-5; Draft General Comment No. 36 (note 107 above), paras. 23, 25, 28; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, 2012, para.16; Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 16 (2013) on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights, CRC/C/GC/16, paras. 18-20. 117 General Comment No. 14 (note 103 above), paras. 42 and 51; Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (art. 24), CRC/C/GC/15, paras. 75-77, and 79-83. 118 General Comment No. 12 (note 103 above), paras. 15, 19, 20; Report of the Special Rapporteur Ziegler (note 106 above), paras. 23 and 46-51; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, Agribusiness and the right to food, 2009, A/ HRC/13/33; Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, A/68/288, 2013, para. 13. 119 General Comment No. 15 (note 103 above), paras. 23-24, 33 and 44.b. 120 Report of the Independent Expert Albuquerque (note 103 above). 121 General Comment No. 4 (note 103 above), para. 17; General Comment No. 7: (note 103 above); Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, A/HRC/4/18, Annex 1, 2007, paras. 11, 12 and 22. 122 For an overview of positive obligations in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights see J.-F. Akandji-Kombe Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe: Human Rights Handbook no. 7, 2007). In the Inter-American system, the stage for the development of positive obligations was set in the case Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988). In the African system, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria (2001) Case No. 155/96 is particularly relevant. Relevant concluding observations of UN treaty bodies include: Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, 2012, para. 16; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CERD/C/GBR/CO/18-20, 2011, para. 29, and Concluding Observations: Australia, CERD/C/AU.S./CO/15-17, 2010. See also Ineta Zimele, Human Rights Violations by Private Persons and Entities: The Case-Law of International Human Rights Courts and Monitoring Bodies (EUI Working Papers 2009/8). 123 See e.g. General Comment No. 16 (note 116 above), paras. 19-20; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2012), para. 12; Draft General Comment No. 36, (note 107 above), para. 28. 124 See International Commission of Jurists, ‘Courts and the Legal Enforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Comparative experiences of justiciability’ (Geneva, 2008), at 45. See also the cases listed in note 111 above. 125 As argued in: A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press, 2006), at 352 and ff; and I. Cismas, Religious Actors and International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014), at 119-120, and chapter 3 for the development of the argument in relation to religious non-state actors. 126 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, A/HRC/17/31, 2011 (UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). 127 Human Rights Council, Resolution 17/4, A/HRC/RES/17/4, 16 June 2011. 128 Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect, An Interpretative Guide (OHCHR, 2012), at 1. 129 International Law Association, Committee on Non-State Actors, Washington Conference Report, 2014, at 12, available at www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1023. 130 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 12. 131 Ibid., Principle 17. 132 Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (note 128 above), at 8 and 53. 133 Ibid. 134 Ruggie argued that ‘the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights is distinct from issues of legal liability and enforcement, which remain defined largely by national law provisions in relevant jurisdictions.’ UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, at 14 (emphasis added). In 2012, he added: ‘It is important to note that national law provisions, and some human rights requirements in contracts, may result from or be heavily in influenced by international human rights treaties’. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (note 128 above), at 10 (emphasis added). 25