70 prevent human rights violations abroad by corporations domiciled within their territory and/or within their jurisdiction.345 However, it should be noted that the States’ exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, following its human rights obligations, does not justify interference with the internal affairs of another State. Exceptional situations346 necessitating the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction must be examined in a restrictive manner, based on the specific circumstances of each case. The obligation to respect and ensure human rights does not allow States to act in violation of principles of international law, particularly that of non-intervention enshrined in the United Nations Charter.347 In other words, a balance must be maintained between respecting the sovereignty of States in handling their internal affairs in accordance with the principle of non-intervention and in requiring States to comply with their treaty obligations.348 The universality principle of international law acknowledges that actions which are uniformly harmful to States and their subjects, necessitate the recognition of authority of all States to punish such acts wherever they occur, even if there is no relation between the State and the parties or the acts in question. This supports the view that the States’ duty to protect is not confined to territorial jurisdiction.349 There is a rising consensus that this concept extends to abuses against human rights.350 B. Special Duty of States to Protect Human Rights in the Context of Climate Change Climate change directly and indirectly impacts the whole gamut of human rights under international law.351 The duty of States to protect human rights encompasses the impacts 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 CESCR General Comment 24, supra note 342. See, inter alia, ECHR, Case of Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 55721/07, Judgment of 7 July 2011, paras. 131 and 133 to 139; ECHR, Case of Ilaşcu and Others v. Republic of Moldova and Russia [GS], No. 48787/99, Judgment of 8 July 2004, paras. 311 to 319; ECHR, Case of Catan and Others v. Republic of Moldova and Russia [GS], Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, Judgment of 19 October 2012, para. 105; ECHR, Case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, [GS], No. 13216/05, Judgment of 16 June 2015, para. 168, & ECHR, Case of Banković and Others v. Belgium [GS], Decision on admissibility of 12 December 2001, para. 66. United Nations Charter, 1 UNTS XVI. I.C.J., Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary c. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, para. 142. Joaquin Bernas, Introduction to Public International Law 157 (2009). Id. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Understanding Human Rights