The Court concluded that the term jurisdiction can encompass situations of extraterritorial conduct of the State. (78) The Court further established that, in respect of extraterritorial situations, a person is under the jurisdiction of a State where it exercises authority over the person or when the person is under its effective control, be it within or beyond its territory. (81) The Inter-American Court next scrutinized: when does a person fall under the jurisdiction of the State in situations of transboundary environmental harm. The Court noted that the environmental pollution of one country can quickly become the environmental and human rights problem of another. In approaching the question of jurisdiction and transboundary harm, the InterAmerican Court relied on several grounds. First, it recalled the consistent case law of the International Court of Justice articulating the duty of states to avoid causing transboundary environmental harm. Second, it reaffirmed the duty of states to not to pose obstacles to other states to fulfill their human rights obligations. In this regard, the Court noted that activities within the jurisdiction of a state should not deprive another state of its capacity to ensure the enjoyment of human rights to persons in its jurisdiction. That analysis led the Court to a crucial point: the state where the harm originates “is in a position to prevent transboundary harm that affects the enjoyment of human rights of individuals outside its territory” [emphasis added]. The conclusion of law that follows is plain: in a case of transboundary environmental harm that impacts on human rights, the persons whose rights have been violated are under the jurisdiction of the State of origin of the harm. In other words, the principle laid out by the Inter-American Court is that a state may be responsible for extraterritorial human rights violations where there is a causal connection between an activity in its territory (or jurisdiction) and the transboundary environmental harm that impairs human rights. Before analyzing the legal implications of this principle for corporate activities, I think it is worth highlighting that the Inter-American Court received a good number of amicus curiae briefs that helped it approach the questions put to it. The analysis on jurisdiction and extraterritorial human rights obligations laid out by the Inter-American Court has direct implications for corporate responsibilities in respect of human rights. In addition to reiterating earlier pronouncements that businesses should respect human rights and be accountable for the negative human rights impacts of their activities, the Court’s opinion explored the extraterritorial dimensions of corporate responsibilities. The Court examined decisions by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and noted that: in respect of businesses registered in one state but that carry out activities outside of that state’s territory, there is a trend toward the regulation of said activities by the state of registration. This trend, the Court Marcos Orellana – Remarks for Philippines CHR 23 & 24 May Hearing 5