One of the most important characteristics of international law is the obligations of countries towards implementation of treaties. Sometimes the accepted obligations in some international documents are not clear and have not enough solidity. The accepted obligations in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights by governments is one of those obligations. In this regard, the phrases which are used in article 2 of this agreement about states` obligations is unlike to the related article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that clearly is not recalling the obligations of states in economic, social and cultural rights. However, legal evolutions after ratification of above mentioned agreement in 1966 and also proposal of theories of number 2 and 3 of committee of economic, social and cultural rights which act as judicial Quasi organ of conflict dissolution of states, make the nature of states` obligations more clearer in this scope and define a more transparent responsibility for contracting parties. Presentation of these theories was effective in the process of presenting new definitions and principals of the states` obligations` nature in international level. In the way that we can find some dimensions of this matter in human rights council`s agenda. This article is trying to mention a brief history of economic, social and cultural rights in international level and define states` obligations towards mentioned covenant and then analyze number 2 and 3 theories and its developments. The main focus of this text is on number 2 and 3 theories of committee of economic, social and cultural rights as Quasi- Judicial organ of conflict dissolution of states in covenant and its effects on clearing the nature of states` obligations.