If the Commission determines that it needs to respond to the jurisdictional challenges, there is no question that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondents and their actions. Whether the Respondents are operating in the Philippines has no impact on the Commission’s authority to investigate their activities and the impact of those activities that are felt by Filipinos. Again, this is not a formal court proceeding, but even if it was, the Commission has jurisdiction over the activities of these companies, even if the activities take place outside the borders of the country. The statement made by ConocoPhillips implies that it is arguing either that the Commission has no authority over entities that do not reside in the Philippines or that the Commission is improperly attempting to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Commission is operating within its territory to investigate actions that impact Filipinos, which is better described as exercising jurisdiction over entities and actions that affect the territory and people of the Philippines. A 2006 report by the United Nations International Law Commission provides information on work addressing extraterritorial jurisdiction. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session (available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2006/). Annex V provides a clear overview of principles related to extraterritorial jurisdiction, tracing back to a 1927 decision by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), The Case of the S.S. “Lotus” (Government of the French Republic v. Government of the Turkish Republic), Permanent Court of International Justice (Judgment No. 9, Twelfth (Ordinary) Session (1927)). The Lotus case concerned a criminal proceeding initiated in a Turkish court following a collision between a French ship and a Turkish ship on the high seas that resulted in eight Turkish sailors and passengers dying. The PCIJ considered whether courts in Turkey had jurisdiction to hear the case. In addition to declaring “what occurs on board a vessel on the high seas must be regarded as if it occurred on the territory of the State whose flag the ship flies,” the PCIJ recognized that there is no prohibition to “a State exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place abroad.” The Case of the S.S. “Lotus,” at p. 19. The PCIJ explained that to take any more restrictive view: would only be tenable if international law contained a general prohibition to States to extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory, and if, as an exception to this general prohibition, it allowed States to do so in certain specific cases. But this certainly is not the case under international law as it stands at present. Far from laying down a general prohibition . . . , it leaves them . . . a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every State remains free to adopt the principles which it regards as best and most suitable. 4