Commission may need to seek cooperation from the States in which the head offices of some investor-owned Carbon Majors are physically located or where the parent company of a Carbon Major enterprise is incorporated. However, this is no different from any other multi-jurisdictional investigation, a common occurrence in an economically interconnected world. International law is clear that there is a permissive rule with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in cases like this, with concern arising only in the cases of conflicting, not concurrent, jurisdiction.13 While other States may choose to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the investor-owned Carbon Majors, there is no conflict here, absent another State legislating to block the investigation of the Philippines Human Rights Commission, which would arguably be a violation of the duty to cooperate that is essential to addressing the climate change problem. 14 Beyond the UN Guiding Principles, there is recent United States precedent in which the federal comprehensive environmental clean-up statute was applied to emissions from a smelter physically located in Canada. The emissions flowed across the border from Canada into the United States, causing harm within the territory of the United States.15 While initially this action was challenged as an extraterritorial application of the statute, on appeal, the US Circuit Court concluded that it was better understood as a domestic application of the statute.16 The case is important not only as an example, but because the smelter at issue is the same as that of the 1930s Trail Smelter arbitration which is often credited with contributing to the customary legal 13 See discussion of jurisdictional conflicts in Sara L Seck, “Home State Responsibility and Local Communities: The Case of Global Mining” (2008) 11 Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 177-206 at 192-196; Reprinted in C. Sri Krishna, ed., Global Mining Experiences (Amicus Books, Icfai Press, India, 2009); see also Sara L Seck, “Conceptualizing the Home State Duty to Protect Human Rights”, in Karin Buhman, Mette Morsing, & Lynn Roseberry, eds., Corporate Social and Human Rights Responsibilities: Global Legal and Management Perspectives, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) 25-51. 14 Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment: climate change, John Knox, 1 February 2016, A/HRC/31/52 (2016), online: SSRN <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2729611> [Knox, Climate 2016] at paras 42-46. Moreover, the Petition asks that the States of incorporation of the Carbon Majors be notified by the Philippines of their duty to protect the human rights of Filipinos, and to cooperate with the Commission in its investigation. Petition at 27-28. 15 Pakootas v Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd, 452 F 3d 1066 (9th Cir 2006) at 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.”] The litigation arose as a result of a petition brought by the Colville Tribes to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting that the contamination of the area in which they live be studied and cleaned up. 16 The case turned on statutory interpretation, with the interpretation informed by the fact that the legislation was designed to address remediation of harm – that is, clean-up of pollution physically located in the United States. 4