well as both then-serving contemporaneous and former members of international human rights treaty bodies, regional human rights bodies, and Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Maastricht Principles did not create new law, but rather draw from already existing laws and standards with a view to clarifying States’ obligations in relation to their extraterritorial conduct. 35 While the Principles themselves are not legally binding, they interpret and restate pre-existing legally binding standards in international law. As a general matter, Principle 4 indicates that “[e]ach State has the obligation to realize economic, social and cultural rights, for all persons within its territory, to the maximum of its ability …”36 Regarding the duty to protect from human rights abuses, Principle 25(a) of the Maastricht Principles indicates that: “States must adopt and enforce measures to protect economic, social and cultural rights through legal and other means, including diplomatic means, in each of the following circumstances: a) the harm or threat of harm originates or occurs on its territory… d) there is a reasonable link between the State concerned and the conduct it seeks to regulate” (emphasis added).37 Principle 3 of the Maastricht Principles further states that “[a]ll States have obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, both within their territories and extraterritorially.”38 In the present case, the Petition alleges that that the activities of the Carbon Majors significantly contributed to the climate-related harms to human rights in the Philippines. The Petition further alleges that the Carbon Majors’ activities contributed considerably to the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, which in turn have had substantial and harmful environmental effects in the Philippines, including on human rights.39 Should these allegations be substantiated, this clear link would be established between the Carbon Majors’ activities and the human rights abuses that occurred in the Philippines is a straightforward example of when, as set out in Maastricht Principle 25(a) and (d), the Philippines can and should exercise jurisdiction. We note that a prima facie case exists for the exercise of jurisdiction, thus warranting further consideration by the Commission. 35 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Preamble, available for example at http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastricht-principles/? tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid%5D=23 36 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 34, 2012, p. 1084, also available at http://www.etoconsortium.org/nc/en/main-navigation/library/maastricht-principles/?tx_drblob_pi1%5BdownloadUid %5D=23 (accessed 11 November 2016). 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Petition “Statement of Facts,” at 21 – 29. 9