35 in Canada.143 Similar to the U.S. Court, the Honorable Commission has the authority to investigate whether human rights harms are occurring in the Philippines as a result of the respondents’ global operations and activities. 2.81. Drawing on existing laws and standards such as the “no harm” principle with a view to clarifying the obligations of States,144 the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Maastricht Principles”) further support the Honorable Commission’s authority to conduct this national public inquiry, contrary to respondent Shell’s contention that the Maastricht Principles, as well as the UN Guiding Principles, are “not legally binding” and “not directed at private parties.”145 2.82. The Maastricht Principles are premised on the global and universal nature of human rights and the notion that human rights are owed erga omnes to the international community as a whole.146 The Principles specially say that they do not create new legal norms, but rather “articulate the current state of international law regarding extraterritorial obligations, reflecting many of the conclusions drawn by international tribunals, U.N. treaty bodies, and Special Procedures.”147 2.83. The following principles support the Honorable Commission’s authority to investigate and monitor human rights abuses in the Philippines. “Principle 4 explains that “[e]ach State has the obligation to realize economic, social and cultural rights, for all persons within its territory, to the maximum of its ability …”148 Principle 25(a) of the Maastricht Principles indicates that: “States must adopt and enforce measures to protect economic, social and cultural rights through legal and other means, including diplomatic means, in each of the following circumstances: a) the harm or threat of harm originates or occurs on its territory… d) there is a 143 Seck, S., amicus submission dated 12 November 2016, pp. 4-5, available at https://businesshumanrights.org/en/amicus-briefs, last accessed on 08 February 2017; citing to Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd, 452 F 3d 1066 (9th Cir 2006), p. 1068 [“We hold that because CERCLA liability is triggered by an actual threatened release of hazardous substances; and – because a release of hazardous substances took place within the United States; – this suit involves a domestic application of CERCLA.”]. 144 De Schutter, O., et al.’s amicus submission, op cit., p. 9. 145 Respondent Shell’s Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam, No. I (F), pp. 34-55. De Schutter, O., et al.’s amicus submission, op cit., pp. 1103, 1142, 1166. 147 Written statement submitted by Center for International Environmental Law to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WG.16/1/NGO/3, p. 14, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session1/A.HRC.WG.16.1.NGO. 3.pdf, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 148 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Quarterly (2012), Vol. 34, p. 1084, also available at http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastrichtprinciples/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23, last accessed on 11 November 2016.