jurisdiction, without infringing the sovereignty or diminishing the obligations of host states under the Covenant.”105 Furthermore it has required that “[t]o comply with their international obligations in relation to Article 12, States Parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right to health in other countries, and to prevent third parties from violating the right in other countries.”106 As stated in the OHCHR Report, “irrespective of the additional strain climate change-related events may place on available resources, States remain under an obligation to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights under any given circumstances.”107 The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in General Comment 16 finds that States should “[e]nsure access to effective remedy for children whose rights have been infringed by a business enterprise acting as a private party or as a State agent.”108 Access to justice and effective remedy is of particular importance to the youth Petitioners. The Maastricht Principles articulate the current state of international law regarding ETOs, as set out above, including the obligation for states to avoid causing harm. Principle 13 states that: States must desist from acts and omissions that create a real risk of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights extraterritorially. The responsibility of States is engaged where such nullification or impairment is a foreseeable result of their conduct. Uncertainty about potential impacts does not constitute justification for such conduct.109 In the climate context, Principle 13 demonstrates that action needs to be taken now to avoid the foreseeable risk of more severe impacts and resulting from the Carbon Majors’ business activities and operations. Through the current efforts of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment in promoting and reporting on the realization of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, there is recognition that international human rights law imposes certain procedural and substantive obligations on States                                                                                                                         105 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on the Obligations of States Parties Regarding the Corporate Sector and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2011, at ¶¶ 5-6. 106 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Culutral Rights, General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, Twenty-Second Session, August 11, 2000, at ¶ 39. It has made similar statements in other General Comments, for example United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Culutral Rights, General Comment 15: The Right to Water, Twenty-Ninth Session, January 20, 2003, at ¶ 33. 107 Human Rights Council, Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights and Reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, Fifth Session, January 15, 2009, at ¶ 77. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/climatechange/docs/A.HRC.10.61_AUV.pdf. 108 General Comment 16, supra note 33 at 4. 109 O. De Schutter, A. Eide, A. Khalfan, M. Orellana, M.Salomon, & I. Seiderman, Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 34 HUMAN RIGHTS Q. 1084, 1112 (2012).             27