Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions 11. The Lotus judgement makes it clear that neither prescriptive nor adjudicative jurisdiction are limited to a state’s territorial boundaries. On the contrary, states have wide discretion to extend the reach of their prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction, provided that a clear nexus exists. State practice reflects this interpretation: in an ever more globalized world, states increasingly exercise jurisdiction extraterritorially. As noted by Parrish: The number of U.S. lawsuits where American laws are applied extraterritorially to solve global problems has grown. This trend, however, is not peculiar to the United States. Increasingly other countries are also applying their laws extraterritorially to exert international influence and solve transboundary challenges.32 12. Provided a sufficiently close connecting factor – variously referred to as a ‘nexus’, ‘link’, ‘base’ or ‘principle of jurisdiction’ – exists between a state exercising jurisdiction and the conduct or persons it seeks to regulate or adjudicate over, States may extend their prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction to persons, property and acts outside their territory. State practice that is widely accepted is commonly referred to as ‘principles of jurisdiction’. Traditionally, the most widely used principle was that of territoriality. However, as one leading authority notes: The territorial theory has been refined in light of experience and what amounts to extra-territorial jurisdiction is to some extent a matter of appreciation. If there is one cardinal principle emerging, it is that of a genuine connection between the subject matter of jurisdiction and the territorial base or reasonableness of interest of the state in question.33 8 13. The ‘reasonableness’34 (or ‘proportionality’)35 test will be satisfied if the ‘domestic effects are direct, foreseeable and substantial.’36 The petition before the Commission raises the fundamental question of the domestic effects of the respondents’ conduct so far as it has impacted climate change. There is a clear nexus between the Philippines and the climate change impacts that are the object of the petition under consideration.37 14. Contrary to what the respondents allege, therefore, the exercise of the Commission’s jurisdiction over foreign corporations would not constitute an ‘act of interference’ or ‘usurpation’ of other states’ sovereignty.38 Neither would it ‘be tantamount to an undue encroachment on the territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty of such other states where Respondents are domiciled and operate’.39 15. In any event, it is not up to the respondents to protest against breaches of sovereignty and abuses of jurisdiction; such protests are the sole prerogative of states.40 In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice specifically considered whether the burden of proof lies with the state that claims it is entitled to exercise legislative and adjudicative jurisdiction, or whether it lies with the state claiming that such jurisdiction is illegal and opined that it fell on the latter.41 Moreover, the Lotus case clearly supports the contention that the Commission may exercise adjudicative jurisdiction over acts that occurred outside the Philippines territory: there is therefore no requirement in international law that respondents conduct business in the Philippines. There is, moreover, no assumption in international law that individuals or corporations will be regulated only once, and situations of multiple jurisdictional competence occur frequently. In such situations there is no ‘natural’ regulator and the consequences of multiple laws applying to the same transactions are managed, rather than avoided.42 16. Accordingly, as long as the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction falls within one of the established principles, it is in accordance with international law. The following sections review the principles of jurisdiction most relevant for the purposes of the petition: the territorial principle and the protective principle.