Memorandum for the Petitioners | 70 D. Respondent Carbon Majors’ responsibility to respect and protect human rights under law and agreements international Respondent Carbon Majors are acting unlawfully. They have a 6.9. legal responsibility to respect, including through proactive measures," and protect?” the human rights of the Filipino people, as described in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights The UNGPs should be (“UNGPs”) and international jurisprudence. interpreted in accordance with international environmental law and the international law governing climate change, including the precautionary principle and polluter pays principles,”” and with national laws and doctrines, like the Oposa Doctrine of “intergenerational responsibility.”””° 6.10. Under the UNGPs, business enterprises are required to commit at the highest level to respect human rights, undertake human rights due diligence to identify and avoid potential adverse impacts, and provide remedy in the event of adverse harm. 6.11. More specifically for the respondent Carbon Majors, the responsibility to respect and protect human rights entails an obligation on the part of the respondents not to contribute to human rights impairments, infringements, abuses, and/or violations arising from climate change; as well as prevent, mitigate, and accept responsibility for the adverse human rights impacts linked to their activities, as directed by the Interpretive Guidance of the UNGPs. 6.12. As explained in the Joint Summary of the Amicus Curiae, “[t]he Interpretive Guidance” confirms that an enterprise can contribute to an adverse human rights impact through the legal sale of its products. The evidence demonstrates that the respondents have, through their operations and products, caused the emissions of GHGs in such significant quantities as to 293 Cover Letter to Joint Summary of the Amicus Curiae Briefs, supra note 287. 294 Id, citing Kalifia and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R., Judgment (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), para. 224 (25 November 2015), available at http://www.corteidh.or.ct/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf (last accessed on 12 September 2019); Urbaser S.A. & Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, para. 1999 (08 December 2016); Case against New TV S.A.L, and Karma Mohamed Tahsin al Khayat, STL-14-05/PT/AP/ARI26.1, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Personal Jurisdiction in Contempt Proceedings, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, para. 46 (02 October 2014). 295 Joint Summary of the Amicus Curiae, supra note 50, p. 65. 296 e.g, Oposa, et al. v. Factoran, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, also available at html (last accessed on 12 September https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jul1993/gr_101083_1993 2019). 297 Italics and emphasis supplied