Introduction National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are official independent legal institutions established by a State by law for the promotion and protection of human rights. They are established by the constitution or an act of the legislature that guarantees their independence from political direction and political interference, both governmental and non-governmental. They comply with the international minimum standards for NHRIs, the Paris Principles.1 Because they are legal bodies, NHRIs ‘are subject to the constitution and law of their States. An NHRI can do only what the constitution or its establishing law permits it to do. Constitutions are subject to specific processes for adoption and amendment and laws are made by parliaments. NHRIs have no control over these processes. They are not only established by law but also restricted by law. They can speak and act only within the limits of the law that establishes them.’2 The primary responsibilities of an NHRI are human rights within its own country and the human rights obligations of its own government. However, at times an NHRI may be required or permitted to act on matters that arise outside the territory of its own country. This paper examines circumstances where this can occur and discusses whether, when and how an NHRI can act in relation to extraterritorial human rights cases and situations. In this paper, • A ‘human rights case’ is an instance or occurrence of a violation of specific human rights of one or more specific individuals, persons who are identified or identifiable • A ‘human rights situation’ is a broader combination of circumstances constituting a pattern of many human rights violations in a particular place affecting large numbers of people and groups of people. The roles of NHRIs in relation to extra-territorial human rights cases and situations are best considered on a functional basis. NHRIs have a long list of functions in their laws, five of which are particularly relevant to extra-territorial cases and situations: • Investigation and resolution of cases • Inquiry into human rights situations • Advice and recommendation on human rights situations • Cooperation and collaboration with other NHRIs and with global, regional and sub-regional associations of NHRIs • Human rights education. This paper discusses each of these in turn. It also provides three scenarios, based on recent experiences, that enable discussion of possible actions an NHRI can take in relation to extraterritorial cases and situations. The paper includes some specific examples of laws and experiences of specific NHRIs in the Asia Pacific region, provided by the NHRIs themselves or reported on their websites. It does not address the legal position of each NHRI in the region. It discusses the legal position of NHRIs in general terms and provides broad indications of their possible roles in relation to extra-territorial human rights cases and situations. Each NHRI will need to examine its own legislation to determine the extent to which these broad indications apply to its law and practice. 1. Asia Pacific Forum A manual on national human rights institutions 2018 p 11 at https://www.asiapacificforum.net/resources/manual-on-nhris. The ‘Paris Principles’ is the generally used name for Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/54 and General Assembly resolution 48/134. They are reproduced in full in Asia Pacific Forum A manual on national human rights institutions 2018 p 306. 2. Asia Pacific Forum A manual on national human rights institutions 2018 p 12 at https://www.asiapacificforum.net/resources/manual-on-nhris. National action on international issues 7