33 doctrine focuses on where the conduct’s effects are felt, rather than where the conduct occurs. The effects doctrine serves as one of the bases of jurisdiction in several jurisdictions, including Australia (with the exception of Western Australia), Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.134 2.75. While human rights bodies in the home States of the respondent Carbon Majors could exercise jurisdiction over this matter, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to provide recourse for petitioners in this manner. Petitioners would have to file petitions in multiple foreign jurisdictions, imposing an extreme burden -- financial and technical -- on the petitioners. This piecemeal approach would also result in costly investigations with respect to the individual contributions of the respective Carbon Majors and the human rights harms they cause, rather than a cumulative assessment of the harms that petitioners are now suffering. 2.76. The doctrine of necessity permits the Honorable Commission to accept a complaint where there is no feasible alternative human rights forum in other countries, or where the petitioners may be reasonably expected to bring the action.135 This doctrine has been adopted in many jurisdictions to ensure that victims are not denied access to justice, a core principle underlying international law. The rationale for this doctrine has been explained by a Canadian court of appeals as follows: “The forum of necessity doctrine recognizes that there will be exceptional cases where, despite the absence of a real and substantial connection, the need to ensure access to justice will justify the assumption of jurisdiction… Where there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief, there is a residual discretion to assume jurisdiction.”136 2.77. Given that the petitioners have raised their concerns regarding human rights violations that have occurred -- and are still occurring -- in the Philippines, the Honorable Commission is the most appropriate forum to undertake an investigation and issue findings as to how these violations can, and shall, be remedied. 2.78. The authority to exercise jurisdiction over the respondent Carbon Majors, based on the territoriality principle and the effects doctrine, 134 Vanuatu Environmental Law Association and West Coast Environmental Law, Taking Climate Justice into Our Own Hands: A Model Climate Compensation Act (December 2015), pp. 17-18, available at http://static1.squarespace.com/static/565777bfe4b0509ba9e4f31e/t/5666fee5dc5cb481d318cb85/14495905 01349/web_version_final.pdf, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 135 See e.g. Nwapi, C., Jurisdiction by Necessity and the Regulation of the Transnational Corporate Actor, (2014) 30(78) Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 24, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.cb, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 136 Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited, 98 OR (3d) 721 (2010).