34 is bolstered by the “no harm” principle, a widely recognized principle of customary international law.137 Respondent Cemex challenges the status of the “no harm” principle as customary international law as well as the petitioners’ reliance on the Trail Smelter arbitration.138 2.79. Under the “no harm” principle, States have to exercise due diligence in preventing harm by taking all measures possible to reduce the risk of significant transboundary harm. In the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) decision in Pulp Mills, the ICJ found that this obligation “is now part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.”139 States must exercise due diligence in preventing “significant” transboundary harm.140 Climate change arises as a result of conduct in all countries, and its effects are felt globally— as such, each State has to take steps to prevent it and protect its people from the catastrophic impacts. Therefore, the Philippines is responsible for taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Carbon Majors refrain from activities that are interfering with the rights of people in the Philippines.141 2.80. The Philippines, and the parties to the UNFCCC, have recognized the “no harm” applies to climate change.142 The “do no harm principle” was established in the Trail Smelter arbitration, in which an International Joint Commission handled a dispute concerning emissions from a Canadian facility that was believed to be causing harm in the United States. In a recent U.S. case concerning the same facility, a court found that it could apply U.S. law even though the polluting facility at issue is located 137 The “no harm” principle is well recognized as customary international law that applies to all states. See Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, (7th ed.) (2008), pp. 280, 285; Patricia Bernie, P., and Boyle, A., International Law & the Environment, (2nd ed.) (2002), pp. 104-105; Birnie, P., Boyle, A., and Redgwell, C., International Law and the Environment (3rd ed.) (2009), pp. 143-144. The International Court of Justice in several cases involving transboundary harm has confirmed the principle. ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226 para. 29, Judgement, Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ Reports 1997, p.41, para.53. 12 ICJ, Judgement, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 2010 ICJ Reports 1, 38, para.101. 13 ICJ, Judgement, Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 2010 ICJ Reports 1, 38, para.101; Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 16 December 2015, para. 101, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/152/18848.pdf, last accessed on 08 February 2017. 138 Respondent Cemex’s Entry of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss dated 14 September 2016, No. 34, p. 22, No. 35, pp. 22-23, and No. 35.2, p. 23. 139 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), op cit., para. 101, citing the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, op cit., p. 242, para. 29. Confirmed in the joined cases Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica para. 104, 118. 140 The case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v. Uruguay, ICJ 2010. 141 See Petition dated 09 May 2016, pp. 45-46. 142 The no-harm rule has been incorporated into international legal documents and policies. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Preamble 1771 UNTS 107; S. Treaty Doc No. 102-38; U.N. Doc. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1; 31 ILM 849 (1992) [“Recalling also that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”]; Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration; Principle 2 of the1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Article 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; and Article 194(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.