This submission is provided in response to the Committee’s call for inputs on the interpretation and application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in situations of conflict, post‑conflict and transition. It aims to contribute an expert, practice‑informed perspective on how economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) are affected in contemporary conflict settings, and on how States, non‑State actors and the international community can strengthen protection, accountability and recovery frameworks in line with the Covenant.

The paper is co‑written by members of the MENA Team of Echoes Cooperation, drawing on our collective experience in youth‑led research, policy analysis and advocacy at the intersection of youth rights, peacebuilding and social justice. Our contribution is informed by sustained engagement with young people, civil society actors and human rights mechanisms across conflict‑affected and post‑conflict contexts, including in the Middle East and North Africa region. While Echoes Cooperation does not operate as an implementing humanitarian organization in active conflict zones, our work focuses on structural analysis, legal standards and policy coherence, with particular attention to how systemic dynamics affect the realization of ESCR for groups disproportionately impacted by conflict.

Echoes Cooperation is a youth‑led grassroots organization committed to advancing social justice through research, capacity‑building and advocacy. The organization works across local, regional and international levels, supporting young people and civil society to engage meaningfully with human rights frameworks, peacebuilding processes and policy spaces. Our approach emphasizes intersectionality, accountability and the role of young people as rights‑holders and agents of change, particularly in contexts marked by conflict, inequality and political transition.

This submission addresses several interrelated themes that are central to the Committee’s call for inputs. First, it examines the responsibilities of non‑State actors in situations of armed conflict and post‑conflict, including private companies, humanitarian contractors, development actors, financial institutions and other non‑State entities whose role often expands in contexts of weakened governance and emergency legal frameworks.

Second, the paper focuses on accountability and access to remedy for violations of economic, social and cultural rights in conflict and post‑conflict situations. It highlights how institutional collapse, insecurity, displacement and political instability create profound barriers to justice, often leaving victims without effective avenues for redress.

Third, the paper addresses reparations and remedies in conflict‑affected contexts, advocating for a broad and holistic understanding of reparations that includes restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non‑repetition. It underscores the importance of collective and community‑based reparations measures where ESCR violations affect entire populations or social groups, and calls for approaches that are age‑sensitive, gender‑responsive and trauma‑informed. Fourth, the submission examines the integration of ESCR into peacebuilding, reconstruction and sustainable recovery, with specific attention to the principle of maximum available resources and emergency budgeting. It argues that conflict and post‑conflict periods are not only moments of acute vulnerability but also critical junctures that shape long‑term development trajectories and rights outcomes.

Finally, the paper offers an in‑depth analysis of energy access and just transition in conflict and post‑conflict settings as a concrete illustration of how ESCR are interconnected and dependent on essential infrastructure systems. It highlights how attacks on energy infrastructure undermine a wide range of rights, including health, water, housing and education, and how energy insecurity amplifies humanitarian needs and weakens State capacity. At the same time, the paper identifies post‑conflict recovery as an opportunity to advance more resilient, decentralized and sustainable energy systems, linking energy policy to peacebuilding, social justice and long‑term stability.

Grounded in a youth‑led and regionally informed perspective, the paper aims to contribute to a General Comment that responds to contemporary conflict dynamics while reinforcing the universality, indivisibility and enforceability of economic, social and cultural rights.

As a youth‑led grassroots organization engaged in research, policy analysis and advocacy at the intersection of youth rights, peacebuilding and social justice, Echoes Cooperation offers the following reflections from an expert perspective on situations of conflict and post‑conflict. While we do not operate directly in active conflict settings, our work with young people, civil society actors and human rights frameworks informs our analysis of how non‑State actors affect the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights in such contexts.

In situations of conflict, the role and impact of non‑State actors – including business enterprises, private security providers, humanitarian contractors, extractive industries, financial institutions and development actors – are often intensified due to weakened governance, emergency legal frameworks and reduced accountability. The General Comment should clearly affirm that non‑State actors have a responsibility to respect economic, social and cultural rights at all times, including during armed conflict, occupation and transitional periods, in line with existing ICESCR jurisprudence and applicable international humanitarian law.

Non‑State actors may directly influence access to essential services such as health care, water, electricity, housing, food and education, particularly where they substitute or complement State functions. In conflict‑affected settings, privatized or outsourced service provision can exacerbate inequalities, exclude displaced or marginalized populations, and undermine the principle of non‑discrimination. From an expert perspective, the General Comment should clarify that non‑State actors must refrain from conduct that foreseeably contributes to the denial of minimum core obligations under the Covenant, regardless of contractual arrangements or emergency justifications.

The responsibility to respect Covenant rights exists independently of State authorization or incapacity. In situations where State institutions are unable or unwilling to regulate effectively, heightened human rights due diligence is required of non‑State actors. This includes conflict‑sensitive risk assessments, continuous monitoring of impacts, and the adoption of measures to prevent harm, particularly to groups at heightened risk such as young people, internally displaced persons and conflict‑affected communities. The General Comment should make explicit that operating in a conflict environment does not lower the standard of expected conduct.

States parties retain their obligations under the Covenant even in conflict, including the duty to regulate non‑State actors to the maximum extent possible. However, in recognition of the practical limitations that may arise, the Committee should also emphasize the responsibility of third States, home States and international actors to prevent and address abuses linked to transnational operations in conflict settings. Accountability gaps are especially pronounced in these contexts and require strengthened international cooperation.

Finally, access to remedy is particularly constrained in conflict and post‑conflict situations. The General Comment should stress that affected individuals and communities must have access to effective, safe and accessible remedies for harms caused by non‑State actors, including through non‑judicial and collective mechanisms where formal justice systems are disrupted. Ensuring accountability for non‑State conduct is essential to prevent exploitation, contribute to recovery and support the sustainable realization of economic, social and cultural rights in conflict-affected societies.

In situations of armed conflict and their aftermath, ensuring accountability for violations of economic, social and cultural rights remains both essential and particularly challenging. Weak or collapsed legal systems, insecurity, displacement and political instability often create significant barriers to justice. From an expert perspective, the General Comment should affirm that the right to an effective remedy, as an integral component of Covenant protections, applies fully in situations of armed conflict and is not subject to derogation.

The Committee should clarify that States parties have an obligation to take all feasible measures to ensure access to justice, even in conditions of institutional fragility. This includes adapting judicial and administrative mechanisms so that they remain accessible, independent and safe, particularly for individuals in conflict affected and hard to reach areas. Where domestic systems are unable to function effectively, alternative and complementary mechanisms, including international, regional and hybrid accountability processes, should be recognised as essential avenues for redress.

Accountability frameworks must also address violations involving non State actors. As outlined above, such actors play an increasingly prominent role in conflict affected contexts, yet accountability gaps remain widespread. The General Comment should emphasise that both host States and home States have responsibilities to investigate, regulate and adjudicate harms linked to corporate and transnational activity. This includes ensuring that victims have access to remedies across jurisdictions where necessary, and that legal, financial and procedural barriers to such claims are reduced.

Reparations should be understood broadly, encompassing restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non repetition. In conflict and post conflict settings, reparative measures must be responsive to the structural and collective nature of harm, particularly where violations of economic, social and cultural rights affect entire communities. The General Comment should encourage the development of collective and community based reparations programmes, including those that restore access to essential services such as housing, education, healthcare and livelihoods.

Particular attention must be given to groups disproportionately affected by conflict. The experience is compounded and has long term impacts on economic, social and cultural rights.

Barriers such as lack of documentation, displacement, stigma and insecurity can significantly limit their ability to seek remedy. The General Comment should call for remedies that are accessible, age sensitive, gender responsive and trauma informed, ensuring meaningful participation of affected individuals and communities in the design and implementation of reparative processes.

Finally, the Committee should underline the importance of international cooperation in supporting accountability and reparations in conflict settings. This includes technical assistance, capacity building, funding for reparations programmes and support for documentation and evidence gathering initiatives. Without sustained international engagement, accountability gaps risk becoming entrenched, undermining both recovery efforts and the long term realisation of Covenant rights.

Armed conflicts are often discussed in terms of violence and displacement, but one of their most critical consequences is the collapse of essential infrastructure systems, especially energy. Electricity is not only a technical service but a fundamental enabler of economic and social rights. Without reliable energy, access to healthcare, clean water, education, and adequate living conditions becomes severely limited. In this sense, energy systems can be understood as the invisible backbone of human rights protection.

Recent conflicts clearly show the systemic impact of attacks on energy infrastructure. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the World Health Organization has documented at least 2,881 attacks on health care facilities as of 2025. These attacks are closely connected to disruptions in electricity supply. According to Physicians for Human Rights, 92% of healthcare workers reported experiencing power outages, and 66% stated that these outages directly affected medical procedures, including surgeries and emergency care. In some cases, operations had to be performed using flashlights, significantly increasing risks for patients.

A similar pattern can be observed in other regions. Recent developments in the Middle East further highlight these risks. During the 2026 escalation involving Iran, attacks on energy infrastructure across the region caused damages estimated at up to $58 billion, affecting oil and gas facilities, pipelines, and refineries. These disruptions not only impacted national economies but also contributed to global instability, including rising energy prices and inflation. At the same time, the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20–27% of global oil trade normally passes, demonstrated how conflict-related energy shocks can affect millions of people beyond the immediate conflict zone.

The consequences of energy infrastructure destruction also extend deeply into basic living conditions. Electricity is essential for water supply systems, sanitation networks, food storage, and heating, all of which are critical for survival and dignity in conflict settings. In Ukraine, by 2024, around 90% of the generating capacity of major private energy providers had been damaged or destroyed. This level of destruction demonstrates not only infrastructure loss but also the breakdown of interdependent rights systems. From a political and economic perspective, targeting energy infrastructure has become a strategic tool in modern conflicts. It weakens state capacity, increases dependence on international assistance, and forces governments to redirect limited financial resources toward emergency repairs instead of social development. This directly affects the ability of states to fulfill their obligations under the Covenant, especially the principle of using maximum available resources for the progressive realization of rights. In this way, attacks on energy systems are not only military actions but also have long-term social and economic consequences.

In this context, it is important to reconsider the role of energy within humanitarian and legal frameworks. Access to energy should not be treated only as a development issue, but also as a basic humanitarian need. Without electricity, hospitals cannot function properly, water systems collapse, and communication becomes limited. Therefore, ensuring minimum energy access should be considered as important as providing food, water, and medical assistance in conflict situations.

At the same time, post-conflict recovery creates an opportunity to build more resilient and sustainable energy systems. Instead of simply restoring centralized infrastructure that can be easily damaged again, recovery strategies should focus on decentralized renewable energy solutions, such as solar power. These systems can be deployed relatively quickly, work independently from large grids, and are less vulnerable to attacks. In several humanitarian contexts, solar-powered systems have already been used to support hospitals and local communities, helping maintain essential services even during instability.

This approach is closely connected to the idea of a just transition. Recovery should not only rebuild what was lost but also reduce future risks and strengthen long-term sustainability. Integrating renewable energy into reconstruction processes can support economic stability, reduce external dependency, and improve access to essential services. In this way, energy policy becomes part of peacebuilding and contributes to more stable and inclusive recovery.

Based on these observations, several recommendations can be made:

• • First, access to energy should be explicitly recognized as a key component of economic and social rights in situations of armed conflict.
  • Second, humanitarian frameworks should include energy access as a priority area.
  • Third, states and international actors should invest in decentralized renewable energy solutions during both emergency response and recovery phases.
  • Finally, international cooperation should be strengthened to support countries that lack sufficient resources to rebuild their energy systems.

In conclusion, energy systems play a central role in protecting human rights during armed conflicts. Recognizing this connection and integrating energy into legal and policy frameworks can significantly improve the protection of economic and social rights and support more effective and sustainable recovery processes.

This submission has sought to demonstrate that situations of armed conflict and post‑conflict transition pose profound and persistent challenges to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, while also creating critical moments for advancing stronger, more equitable and  sustainable rights‑based frameworks. Conflict does not suspend obligations under the Covenant, nor does it justify weakened standards of protection, accountability or participation. On the contrary, the erosion of institutions, the reconfiguration of governance arrangements and the expansion of non‑State actor involvement in conflict‑affected contexts make clear guidance from the Committee both urgent and necessary.

A central conclusion of this paper is the need for a clear and unequivocal affirmation of the responsibilities of non‑State actors in conflict and post‑conflict settings. As private companies, humanitarian contractors, development actors and other non‑State entities increasingly shape access to essential services, the risks to equality, non‑discrimination and minimum core obligations grow. The Committee’s General Comment should make explicit that non‑State actors must respect economic, social and cultural rights at all times, regardless of emergency contexts, contractual arrangements or State incapacity.

At the same time, the paper underscores that States parties retain their obligations under the Covenant even in conditions of conflict, including the duty to regulate and oversee non‑State actors to the maximum extent possible. Where domestic capacity is limited, the responsibilities of third States, home States and international actors become especially significant. Without strengthened international cooperation and cross‑border accountability, protection gaps linked to transnational and corporate activity risk becoming entrenched, undermining both recovery efforts and long‑term rights realization.

Access to effective remedies and accountability emerges as a second core conclusion. Conflict and post‑conflict environments systematically constrain access to justice, yet the right to an effective remedy remains an integral and non‑derogable component of Covenant protections. The Committee should reaffirm that States parties must take all feasible measures to ensure access to justice, including through adapted judicial and administrative mechanisms that remain accessible, independent and safe. Where domestic systems are unable to function effectively, international, regional and hybrid mechanisms should be recognized as essential complements rather than exceptional alternatives. Accountability frameworks must also explicitly encompass violations involving non‑State and transnational actors, ensuring that victims can access remedies across jurisdictions and that procedural and financial barriers are reduced.

The paper further concludes that reparations in conflict‑affected contexts must be understood broadly and collectively. Violations of economic, social and cultural rights in situations of armed conflict often affect entire communities and social groups, producing structural and long‑term harm. Reparative measures must therefore go beyond individualized compensation to include restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non‑repetition, with an emphasis on restoring access to essential services such as housing, healthcare, education and livelihoods.

A further conclusion concerns the integration of the Covenant into peacebuilding, reconstruction and sustainable recovery processes. The principle of using maximum available resources remains fully applicable during conflict and transition, and choices made during emergency budgeting and early recovery stages have lasting implications for social cohesion and rights realization. A rights‑based approach to reconstruction is not only a legal obligation but also a practical foundation for preventing renewed instability and addressing the root causes of conflict.

Finally, the analysis of energy access and just transition illustrates how economic, social and cultural rights are deeply interconnected and dependent on core infrastructure systems. Attacks on energy infrastructure undermine a wide range of rights simultaneously and weaken State capacity to meet Covenant obligations. Ensuring minimum energy access should therefore be recognized as a humanitarian priority in conflict situations. At the same time, post‑conflict recovery offers a critical opportunity to advance more resilient, decentralized and sustainable energy systems that reduce future vulnerabilities and support inclusive development.

In conclusion, this submission calls on the Committee to adopt a General Comment that responds to contemporary conflict dynamics with clarity, ambition and coherence. By strengthening guidance on non‑State actor responsibilities, access to remedies, reparations, resource allocation and rights‑based recovery—including energy access—the Committee can reinforce the universality and enforceability of economic, social and cultural rights in some of the most challenging contexts. From a youth‑led and regionally informed perspective, we emphasize that accountability, participation and sustainability must remain central to any interpretation of the Covenant in situations of conflict and transition.