status of the “do no harm” principle of International Environmental Law. 17 The exercise of jurisdiction by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights over the Carbon Majors would be no different from the exercise of jurisdiction by the United States over emissions from Canada’s Trail Smelter. 2. Relevance and Application of the Business Responsibility to Respect Rights As the petitioners correctly note, the corporate responsibility to respect rights is described in the Commentary to Principle 11 of the Guiding Principles as a “global standard of expected conduct” that “exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations” and is “above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.”18 The Guiding Principles are clear that the responsibility arises in relation to all internationally recognized human rights. 19 As the UN independent expert and now special rapporteur on environmental rights has clarified in recent reports, there is agreement among states that environmental and climate harms interfere with the enjoyment of many internationally recognized human rights.20 Moreover, while the focus of the reports by the Special Rapporteur is upon the duty of States, he nevertheless reminds us that under the UN Guiding Principles, “corporations themselves have a responsibility to respect human rights” and all pillars of the “normative framework for business and human rights apply to all environmental human rights abuses, including impairments of human rights in relation to climate change.” 21 It 17 See for example Malcolm N Shaw, International Law, 7th edition, (Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 618-619, quoting the Trail Smelter Arbitration, (1941) 35 AJIL at p716 “no state has the right to use or permit the use of territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein …”. 18 UNGPs at p13. 19 UNGPs at p13 (Commentary to Principle 12). 20 Knox, Climate 2016. 21 Knox, Climate 2016 at para 66. See also Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, John H. Knox: Mapping Report, UNOHCHR, 25th Sess, UN Doc A/HRC/25/53, (2014), online: United Nations Mandate on Human Rights and the Environment <http://srenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-53-clean-final-version1.doc> at para 59; John Knox, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, UNHRC, 31st Session, UN Doc A/HRC/31/53 (28 December 2015); John H Knox, Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, John H Knox: Compilation of Good Practices, UNHRC,28th Session, UN Doc A/HRC/28/61 (3 February 2015), online: United Nations Mandate on Human Rights and the Environment <http://srenvironment.org/2015/03/02/annual-reportto-the-human-rights-council-2/> at para 79 [Knox, Compilation of Good Practices] (stating that the business responsibility to respect rights extends to “human rights abuses caused by pollution or other environmental harm.”) On the implications of the business responsibility to respect environmental rights for extractive companies, see Sara L Seck, “Human Rights and 5