32 states have long recognized the right of a state to exercise jurisdiction over persons or events located outside its territory in certain circumstances…”127 2.72. The decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the S.S. Lotus128 case challenges the notion that a State cannot exercise jurisdiction over conduct that occurs beyond its territory. In this case, the PCIJ distinguished the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction from the exercise of jurisdiction over foreign acts that have caused harm within its territory. The PCIJ found that there is no general rule of international law that prohibits a “State from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place abroad.”129 A 2006 International Law Commission report summarizes the case: “The Court indicated that the jurisdiction of a State is territorial in nature and that a State cannot exercise jurisdiction outside its territory in the absence of a permissive rule of international law to the effect. However, the Court distinguished between the jurisdiction by a State outside its territory and the exercise of jurisdiction by a State within its territory with respect to persons, property or acts outside its territory.”130 2.73. Regardless of whether respondents have operations in the Philippines131, the exercise of “jurisdiction” is justified given that several of these entities are conducting business outside, and potentially within, the country’s borders in a manner that is causing or contributing to human rights harms in the Philippines. For this reason, the Honorable Commission has the authority to investigate their acts under the territoriality principle discussed above. 2.74. Of equal importance, as it applies to all of the respondent Carbon Majors, the Honorable Commission could exercise “jurisdiction” under the “effects doctrine.”132 This doctrine provides that a state may assert jurisdiction “with regard to the conduct of a foreign national occurring outside the territory of a State which has a substantial effect within that territory.”133 As an extension of the territoriality principle, the effects 127 International Bar Association, Report of the Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (February 2009), p. 11, available at http://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=ECF39839-A2174B3D-8106-DAB716B34F1E, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 128 SS ‘Lotus’ (Government of the French Republic v. Government of the Turkish Republic), Permanent Court of International Justice, 1927 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 10. 129 Citing to SS Lotus case, P.C.I.J. ser. A, No. 10, p. 16. For a more in depth discussion of the S.S. Lotus Case, please see ELAW’s amicus submission dated 07 November 2016, p. 5. 130 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session, V, pp. 520-521, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2006/, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 131 See Annex “C” to the Petition dated 09 May 2016 indicating that some of the respondent Carbon Majors may operate or operated, are or have been otherwise present through entities, in the Philippines based on the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines. 132 ELAW’s amicus submission, op cit., p. 5. 133 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session, V, pp. 522, available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2006/, last accessed on 06 February 2017.