Morning session

The second day of the 11th session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group continued with non-state stakeholders’ reflections on Article 13 (International Cooperation). The US Council for International Business (USCIB) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) called for the article to be redrafted, noting that it does not envisage any consultation with employer and business membership organisations or companies. Civil society organisations (CSOs) expressed strong support for the article, with many endorsing the reintroduction of obligations for states to provide assistance to poorer countries, as proposed by Uruguay, Colombia and Palestine.

Negotiations then moved to Article 14 (Consistency with International Law). The Gulf States expressed concern that Article 14, particularly paragraph 14.5, could create contradictions with other states’ international obligations, including under investment agreements, and therefore proposed amendments. Japan likewise raised concerns that the wording may conflict with states’ existing international commitments and that it could risk imposing obligations that hinder implementation of existing agreements. The EU noted that the current wording leaves significant room for interpretation, and its potential impact, including on trade and investment agreements, could be quite extensive and challenging to predict. However, most states expressed support for the article, with several, such as Mexico, Cameroon, Colombia and Palestine, proposing to expressly indicate that future investment and trade agreements should respect the legally binding instrument (LBI).

The USCIB and the IOE called for a complete redraft of Article 14 arguing that its current language cannot mandate outcomes that would compromise national sovereignty and states’ freedom to negotiate agreements. In contrast, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and CSOs stressed that expressly recognising the primacy of international human rights law over economic interests, particularly in relation to investment and trade agreements, is a key element of the LBI, and that Article 14 should explicitly do so. CSOs also called for provisions curtailing the use of Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms.

The recording of the morning session is available on UN TV here.

Afternoon session

Debate shifted to Articles 15 (Institutional Arrangements) and 16 (Implementation). Many states, including Palestine, Ghana, Colombia, and Mozambique, stressed that strong oversight and independent mechanisms are essential for credible implementation. Proposals included an International Fund for Victims, mechanisms for victim participation and rapid response, and even exploring the creation of an international tribunal or court. Some states, such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil, preferred a narrower or voluntary approach. Contentious debate also arose around specific references to persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identities in Article 15.7, defended by some states but opposed by others.

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions welcomed the establishment of an international fund that would provide legal and financial assistance to victims seeking access to remedy. It noted that sustainable funding mechanisms are a precondition for marginalised and poor communities to exercise their rights. Other CSOs reminded delegates that human rights defenders continue to face abuses by transnational corporations in the name of the just energy transition, reinforcing the call for a strong Victims Fund. Trade unions voiced disappointment that references to a tribunal and an optional protocol had been weakened in recent drafts, calling for the proposed committee to be empowered to receive individual complaints.

Business organisations pushed back, describing Article 15 as overly broad and warning that if any normative recommendations issued by the Committee (Article 15.4 (a)) were to be binding, this would directly interfere with national sovereignty and domestic judicial systems.

At the end of the session, states, including Palestine, Ghana, Cameroon, and Uruguay, started to share their suggestions around Article 16.

The recording of the afternoon session is available on UN TV here.