the Committee commented on the lack of precautions taken by Colombia to protect children from business entities’ abuses. The Committee recommended that Colombia take certain steps to ensure that it protects children under its jurisdiction in accordance with the CRC against abuses by business entities.33 II. States in which a Business is domiciled, as well as States in which the Victims Reside have Obligations to Prevent a Business from Abusing or Impairing Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations refer to the human rights obligations relating to the conduct of States within or beyond its territory that have effects on the enjoyment of human rights outside of that State’s territory as well as obligations of a global character. There is wide-ranging recognition by international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and by courts recognizing that a State’s human rights obligations may extend beyond its borders.34 However, the various authorities on the existence of extraterritorial obligations do not excuse a State from its territorial obligations towards those within its borders. While the Carbon Majors’ business activities occurred primarily outside the physical territory of the Philippines, the Petition alleges that the effects of these activities has a substantial impact on the rights of people in the Philippines. International law does not limit the obligation to prevent and remedy such abuses only to the State(s) in which the businesses are domiciled, or in which the victims reside. Rather, each State is obliged to take the necessary steps within its jurisdiction to address potential or actual abuses. Guidance on the relevant States’ extraterritorial obligations is provided by the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted in 2011 and elaborated through an extensive process over several years by 40 international law experts consisting of experts from universities and organizations located in all regions of the world as 33 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Concluding Observations, Colombia, 6 March 2015, CRC/C/COL/CO/4-5, paras 17—18. 34 The following cases highlight that obligations may extend extraterritorially: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, 2002 I.C.J. 3, 76 para 46 (14 Feb.) (Higgins, Kooimans, & Buergenthal, opinions); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, 1986 I.C.J. 14, 64, para 108; The Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Alb.) (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (9 Apr.); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, para 29 (8 July); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 64, para 115 (27 June); Communication No. 1539/2006 (Munaf v. Rom.), adopted 30 July 2009, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 96th Sess., Annex para 14.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/96/D/1539/2006 (2009); Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, Appl. No. 48787/99, 2004 Eur. Ct. H.R., para 317, available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-61886; Case of Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 55721/07, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R., paras 138–39, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e2545502.pdf; Victor Saldano v. Argentina, Petition, Report No. 38/99, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/ II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 289 (1998), para 19; Provisional Measures in the case of Georgia v. Russian Federation, 2008, No. 35/2008, I.C.J. para 109 (15 Oct.); Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 26 (19 Dec.); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I. C. J. 136, para 109 (9 July); Coard et al. v United States, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 109/99, para 37 (1999); Trail Smelter Case (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1941). 8