To: Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines Re: Amicus Submission, re Petition Requesting for Investigation of the Responsibility of the Carbon Majors for Human Rights Violations or Threats of Violations Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change From: Olivier De Schutter; Asbjørn Eide; Ashfaq Khalfan; Rolf Künnemann; Jernej Letnar Černič; Marcos A. Orellana; Ian Seiderman and Bret Thiele Date: 5 December 2016 Dear Commissioners, The purpose of this letter is to offer the views of international legal experts in support of the position that, pursuant to applicable international law and standards, the Philippines may assert jurisdiction, for example through the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (Commission), over the primary subject matter at issue in the Petition Requesting for Investigation of the Responsibility of the Carbon Majors for Human Rights Violations or Threats of Violations Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change (Petition). International law allows for a State to exercise permissive jurisdiction in instances where the real effects of abusive conduct are felt in that State leading to harm, irrespective of whether the author of the abuse is situated or domiciled in the territory of another State. Moreover, in certain instances, as analysed in this letter, international law requires a State to protect persons within its jurisdiction that suffer human rights abuses as a result of conduct of businesses located outside its boundaries. Several of the Carbon Majors1 have publicly stated that the Commission and the Philippines lack jurisdiction to hear this case. Anglo-American, BHP Billiton, and Conoco Philips have all asserted this lack of jurisdiction argument publicly in their responses published online on the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.2 These assertions are incorrect and, if accepted, would effectively mean that a business outside the territory of a State can cause human rights abuses 1 “Carbon Majors” refers to the corporations named in Richard Heede’s study on the multinational and state-owned corporations that produce crude oil, natural gas, coal and cement. The Petition uses “Carbon Majors” to refer to the defendants collectively. Heede’s study, “Carbon Majors: Accounting for carbon and methane emissions 1854 -- 2010 Methods & Results Report,” was published by Climate Mitigation Services on 7 April 2014, for more information see: http://climateaccountability.org/pdf/MRR%209.1%20Apr14R.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2016). 2 The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre invited all “Carbon Majors” respondents to publicly share their responses to the complaint. While many declined to share their response due to the on-going legal matter, at least three corporations publicly stated that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the present case. However, they did not in those documents provide the legal arguments for their position. See https://business-humanrights.org/en/fossil-fuel-cos-respondto-petition-with-philippines-human-rights-commission-on-human-rights-climate-change-impacts (last accessed 17 November 2016). 1

Select target paragraph3