...[I]n the official negotiations, the Chair-Rapporteur introduced Article 5 on Jurisdiction of the Zero Draft...

One point that the experts noticed was the need to define which court can take up a case for litigation. A possible scenario where the same case could be filed at the same time to different courts should be avoided...

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day pointed to the fact that Article 5 was still not able to remove practical barriers to accessing justice experienced by victims. He mentioned the “Forum non conveniens” as an uncertainty remaining in the Zero Draft: the doctrine by which a national ‘home’ court can decline jurisdiction, insisting that the ‘host’ State has jurisdiction...

The afternoon session was dedicated to Article 1 on Preamble, Article 14 On Institutional Arrangements and Article 15 on Final Provisions...

Layla Hughes [of CIEL] welcomed Article 15.3, which require state parties to protect policies and actions adopted pursuant to the Treaty from commercial and other interests. In her view, this provision could protect governments from interference by industry and allow them to make decisions in the public interest and not only business interests...