Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions 22 37 This is supported by arguments of Special Rapporteur Knox that as scientific knowledge improves, tracing causal connections between particular emissions and resulting harms is possible (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, John H. Knox, A/HRC/31/52, 1 February 2016, paras 36-37) and by J.R. Nash who notes ‘for global air pollutants, it seems possible to claim the every nation might potentially have jurisdiction over all worldwide emissions’. See J.R. Nash, ‘The Curious Legal Landscape of the Extra-Territoriality of US Environmental Laws’ in G. Handl, J. Zekoll and P. Zumbansen (eds), Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization (Martinus Nijhofff Publishers 2012), at 164–165 (emphasis original). 38 Cemex, at 16. 39 Shell, at 1. 40 See Akehurst (note 3 above) at 187: ‘the sanction for an excess of legislative jurisdiction is a protest and/or claim for compensation by the national State of the individual adversely affected’. 41 Lotus case, paras. 19-20. 42 Evans (note 26 above), at 457. 43 Shell, at F.1. 44 Shell, at F.1, citing AV Lowe, International Law (Oxford University Press, 2007). The passage is inaccurately cited as p. 475, but appears on p. 172. 45 Crawford (note 26 above), at 456–457. 46 Ibid. 47 See H.L. Buxbaum, ‘Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict’ (2009). The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol 57. 631-676, accessed at www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=facpub. 48 C. Ryngaert, ‘Jurisdiction Towards a Reasonableness Test’ in M. Langford (ed), Global Justice, State Duties: The Extraterritorial Scope of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2013) 194. 49 Lotus case, para. 23. 50 Joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant, 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) Judgment of 14 February 2002. 51 For an overview, see the International Bar Associations Report of the Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (2009), available at: www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=ECF39839-A217-4B3D-8106-DAB716B34F1E. 52 U.S. v. Aluminium Company of America 148 F. 2d 416, 443 (2nd Cir. 1945). 53 Ibid., para. 118. 54 See e.g. C. Doyle, ‘Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law’ [2016] Congressional Research Service, available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf. On environmental law, see e.g. Nash (note 37 above). 55 See Reports of the Appellate Body, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT.DS58/AB/R (12 October 1998) and WT/DS58/AB/RW (22 October 2001). 56 Reports of the Appellate Body, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT.DS58/AB/R (12 October 1998) para. 133. 57 P. Sands and J. Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press 2012), at 193. 58 Reports of the Appellate Body, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products WT/DS58/AB/RW (22 October 2001), para. 134. 59 See e.g. J. Scott, ‘From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction’ (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 897. 60 For a review of national laws on the issue, see e.g.: S. Lawson and L. MacFaul, ‘Illegal Logging and Related Trade’ (Chatham House 2010). 61 Cf. I. Cameron, The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (Dartmouth Publisher 1994). 62 See e.g. Rehbinder (note 35 above), at 127–135; Nash (note 37 above), at 163. 63 R.B. Bilder, ‘The Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act: New Stresses on the Law of the Sea’ (1970) 69 Michigan Law Review 1. 64 M. Gavouneli, Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007), at 32. 65 Human Rights Council, Resolution 7/23, A/HRC/7/78, 29 March 2008; Human Rights Council, Resolution 10/4, A/HRC/RES/10/4, 25 March 2009; Human Rights Council, Resolution 18/22, A/HRC/RES/18/22, 17 October 2011; and Human Rights Council Resolution 26/27, A/HRC/RES/26/27, 15 July 2014. 66 The large majority of UN member and observer states are party to at least four international human rights treaties. See OHCHR, Status of Ratification Interactional Dashboard, Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard, http://indicators.ohchr.org. 67 L. Rajamani, ‘The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-Based Perspectives in the International Negotiations on Climate Change’ 22 Journal of Environmental Law (2010) 391, at 412.