A/71/317 economic, social and cultural rights as part of the minimum standards of human rights are guaranteed under customary international law”. 45 It has specifically considered that such standards apply in occupied territory, and wherever the State party exercises “effective control”. 46 The Committee has also noted (within the context of the right to food) that it is “of the utmost importance … for States to have control over the impact of their policies within and outside their territory ”. 47 Additionally, the Committee has required States parties to do everything in their power to improve enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights during armed conflict. The International Court of Justice has confirmed the applicability of international human rights law to situations of military occ upation and noted that the occupying Power is bound, inter alia, by the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 48 61. International humanitarian law and human rights law provide complementary and mutually reinforcing protection of economic, social and cultural rights in situations of conflict. In addition, “(t)he application of human rights law, and in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to conflict situations, helps in clarifying the content” of the relevant humanitarian norms (E/2015/59, para. 68). It also supplements those norms, as in the case of intangible cultural heritage which is not adequately covered by international humanitarian law. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the view of some experts on international humanitarian law that a teleological approach to the question of lex specialis suggests that the rule to be applied should be the one that best responds to the needs and specificity of the context, and is also the fairest under the circumstances. Sometimes human rights law should take precedence, because “this allows for heightened protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict, in particular of its intangible dimension”.49 62. Relevant norms of international humanitarian law should be fully and rigorously implemented. In addition, the Special Rapporteur advocates a human rights approach to cultural heritage protection in armed conflict, both as a means of facilitating an understanding of those norms and as a complement to them. This would reframe a number of key issues, as follows. 63. Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact on cultural heritage of the way in which the military necessity exception, including in article 4 (2) of the 1954 Hague Convention and article 6 of the Second Protocol thereto, is interpreted. 50 This exception, in its various permutations, limits the requirement to protect heritage, to refrain either from “acts of hostility” against it or from using it in ways likely to subject it to such acts. The military necessity exception is undoubtedly subject to __________________ 45 46 47 48 49 50 16-13742 See E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, chap. IV, para. 703 (Israel). Concluding observations of the Committee: Israel (E/C.12/1/Add.90), para. 31. E/1998/22, para. 478. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports 2004, p. 136. Christiane Johannot-Gradis, Le patrimoine culturel matériel et immatériel: quelle protection en cas de conflit armé? (Geneva, Schulthess, 2013), p. 175. See also Marco Sassòli, “The role of human rights and international humanitarian law in new types of armed conflicts ”, in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Orna Ben-Naftali, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011), chap. 3. The prohibitions on theft, pillage, vandalism, and misappropriation and requisition of cultural property are not subject to this exception, but rather are absolute. 17/24