Day 1: Monday 12 October
Pexels
Morning session
The morning session of the 12th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) was devoted to opening remarks and general statements from state delegations and civil society organisations. The Chair-Rapporteur M. Vázquez Bermúdez, of Ecuador, affirmed that the treaty addresses a normative vacuum in transnational governance and that a new draft is planned to be released in 2027. UN High Commissioner Volker Türk highlighted risks associated with AI, social media and extractive industries, and that a “bold, forward-looking, legally binding instrument” (LBI) is needed. The Chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Robert McCorquodale, emphasised that corporate power requires matching accountability within a mix of binding and voluntary measures.
The EU, Latin American, Asian and African delegations repeatedly acknowledged advances in national and regional business and human rights regulation. Japan, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar called for greater legal clarity and stronger safeguards for national judicial sovereignty and domestic legal systems.
South Africa and Palestine called for cross-border justice, legal assistance, and cooperation among states.
A number of states, including Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Egypt argued that the scope of the instrument should be limited to transnational corporations, while the International Chamber of Commerce and some states favoured broader application to all businesses. They denied the claim of a normative gap in international law, called for a regulatory impact assessment of the text and a complete alignment with the UNGPs.
Several Global South states, notably Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Indonesia, Cuba and Kenya, expressed clear support for a victim-centred approach.
Civil society organisations and national human rights institutions strongly supported maintaining an ambitious treaty capable of delivering prevention, accountability and effective remedy, including corporate accountability in conflict-affected areas and explicit environmental liability.
Afternoon session
The meeting resumed with outstanding civil society interventions from the morning session. Civil society organisations called for a strong treaty to address corporate impunity, highlighting the disproportionate impacts on women and gender-diverse people, children, workers, Indigenous Peoples and human rights defenders.
The meeting then moved to the proposed revisions to the draft LBI. Discussion focused on mutual legal assistance (Article 12) and moved to international cooperation (Article 13) and consistency with international law (Article 14).
A key issue was the proposed recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under a new provision, Article 12.5, which could strengthen victims’ access to remedy in cross-border cases.
Brazil, Palestine and South Africa in principle supported stronger cross border cooperation to improve access to justice. The Philippines highlighted the importance of mutual legal assistance for migrant workers but that it must remain state-driven. The Global Labour Movement welcomed the proposed Article 12.5 as a significant improvement for workers pursuing remedies across supply chains.
In contrast, the EU, Japan, the GCC, Iran, Saudi Arabia and business organisations expressed concerns about compatibility with domestic legal systems, duplication with the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, and the lack of grounds for refusing assistance or recognition of judgments. Saudi Arabia, the GCC, Iran and some business organisations called for deleting Article 12.5 as it could encourage forum shopping.
Article 13 attracted broad support, particularly for the Chair’s proposal to include awareness-raising on victims’ access to remedy, including from the UK, although Saudi Arabia favoured voluntary cooperation. Labour organisations sought explicit references to trade unions, and civil society groups called for stronger participation by affected communities and greater environmental cooperation.
Article 14 remained politically sensitive, particularly regarding the relationship between human rights obligations and trade and investment agreements. The GCC expressed concern about Article 14.5 that could be open to interpretation and understood as creating a hierarchy placing trade and investment agreements beneath the treaty.