66 for how they address their impacts on human rights; and (c) processes to enable the remediation of adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.321 The jurisdiction of States to enact protective measures are limited within their own territories. Some may equate this to the inability of States to exact accountability for human rights abuses committed abroad by companies domiciled within their territories. However, the duty of States to prevent human rights abuses may extend beyond its territory as applied in the case of Al-Skeini v. UK.322 The UNGP-BHR conveys the view that States are allowed to regulate the behavior of private actors with respect to their impacts on human rights abroad: At present States are not generally required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction. Nor are they generally prohibited from doing so, provided there is a recognized jurisdictional basis. Within these parameters some human rights treaty bodies recommend that home States take steps to prevent abuse abroad by business enterprises within their jurisdiction.323 The customary international law rule of sic utere tuo ut alienum324 is also a rule that imposes upon States a duty to prevent extraterritorial harm. States must not let anything within their territory or control harm other States or their citizens. This principle has been effectively applied to human rights by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights explains in its Advisory Opinion that when a State causes transboundary harm to the citizens of another State, the individuals whose rights are violated are understood to be under the control of the State that caused the damage, if there is a causal connection between the action and the negative impact. This theory is founded on the idea that the State in whose territory or under whose jurisdiction the activities were carried out has effective control over them. States can prevent them from curtailing the enjoyment of human rights by people outside its borders.325 321 Id. (Principle 15). 322 Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 55721/07 (July 7, 2011). 323 UNGP-BHR, supra note 313 (Commentary on Guiding Principle 2). 324 T.R. Subramanya & Shuvro Prosun Sarker, Emergence of Principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non-Laedes in Environmental Law and Its Endorsement by International and National Courts: An Assessment, 5 Kathmandu School of Law Review (2017) 325 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion Concerning the Interpretation of Article 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, OC-23/17 (2017) [hereinafter IACHR Advisory Opinion 23/17].