A/HRC/62/35 respect of international organizations. Under the primary rule of attribution under the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (art. 4), conduct is attributable to a State where it is carried out by its organs. Among other bases for attribution, conduct may also be attributable to a State where it is carried out by entities empowered by law to exercise elements of governmental authority (art. 5), or by persons or groups acting on the State’s instructions or under its direction or control (art. 8). This may include private actors, such as security companies or air carriers, where they are entrusted with functions of a public character normally exercised by State organs.103 Parallel rules on attribution apply in respect of international organizations, under the articles on the responsibility of international organizations. 41. Of particular relevance in the context of externalization, State responsibility is not necessarily exclusive. Depending on the nature and degree of their involvement, one or more States may incur responsibility for violations of international law arising in the course of such arrangements. States may be responsible for their own conduct, including where it occurs alongside, but independently of, that of other actors. Where cooperation is more integrated, multiple States or international organizations may incur joint responsibility 104 or shared responsibility105 for the same internationally wrongful act. Even where direct responsibility cannot be established, a State may incur responsibility for its contribution to a wrongful act attributable to another State. This is particularly relevant in externalization arrangements aimed at preventing arrivals (see para. 9 above), where the involvement may take the form of financing, training or the provision of equipment, and where extraterritorial jurisdiction is not established. In such circumstances, a State may incur responsibility for aiding or assisting, directing or controlling, or coercing another State or an international organization in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, where it does so with knowledge of the circumstances and is bound by the relevant international obligation.106 42. A key challenge in establishing responsibility in the context of externalization measures lies in establishing the jurisdiction of the States concerned so as to engage their human rights obligations. Under international human rights law, States are required to respect and ensure the rights of all persons within their territory or subject to their jurisdiction. 107 In the context of externalization, third States act within their territorial jurisdiction, and it is generally uncontroversial that they are bound by their human rights obligations. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has further stressed that States Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights must take all necessary measures to protect the life, dignity, security and fundamental rights of all persons within their jurisdiction, including migrants transferred pursuant to bilateral or multilateral agreements. 108 This underscores that international cooperation arrangements do not dilute States’ human rights obligations. 43. For externalizing States, however, it may be necessary to demonstrate that individuals outside their territory are nevertheless within their power or effective control, in order to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction and engage their human rights obligations. 109 Concerning extraterritorial asylum processing (see para. 11 above) and transfers to third States (see para. 14), the jurisprudence of United Nations treaty bodies regarding Australia’s 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 14 At the same time, private companies themselves have independent responsibilities to respect human rights, in line with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including avoiding infringing on the human rights of others (principle 11) and avoiding causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts (principle 13). Articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, art. 47; and articles on the responsibility of international organizations, art. 48. André Nollkaemper et al., “Guiding principles on shared responsibility in international law”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 31, issue 1 (February 2020), available at https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/31/1/15/5882075, pp. 15–72. Submission from K. Allinson. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Resolution on the obligations of African States in the context of the externalization of migration governance and the extraregional transfer of migrants to Africa, ACHPR/Res.645 (LXXXV) 2025, 30 October 2025. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. GE.26-06322