Day 4: Thursday 15 October
Morning session
The 7th meeting of the OEIGWG continued deliberations on Article 3 (Scope), reviewing Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
The Chair presented the three wording proposals for Article 3.1 informed by intersessional consultations, including experts’ views that focusing on business activities rather than legal form may better reflect modern corporate structures and complex value chains while helping to prevent accountability gaps. Legal experts shared some general points on Article 3, including on ensuring that prevention obligations are applied proportionately, particularly for SMEs. They also provided an hypothetical example to consider how the various provisions of the LBI might apply to this case.
Disagreement remained on the scope of the LBI. Under Article 3.1 (Scope of application), South Africa, Cuba, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) argued that the treaty should remain anchored in Human Rights Council Resolution 26/9 and focus on business activities of a transnational character. They stressed the importance of preserving the original mandate and addressing cross-border corporate operations accountability gaps. By contrast, EU, UK, Brazil, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Iceland supported a scope encompassing all business enterprises. The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the US Council for International Business (USCIB) stated the LBI should apply to all business activities, arguing that accountability gaps stem primarily from weak domestic legal frameworks and enforcement.
Discussion under Article 3.2 (Definitions) centred on defining transnational business activities and establishing clear criteria for determining when treaty obligations are engaged. Several delegations emphasised legal certainty, foreseeability and the need for objective thresholds in defining a sufficient transnational nexus. CSOs stressed that definition must be sufficiently broad to capture corporate groups and value chains, thereby preventing companies from evading responsibility through complex structuring.
Under Article 3.3, concerning the relationship with International Instruments and existing international legal regimes, Palestine called for reference to international standards relating to Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). While the EU emphasised coherence with existing international obligations, Japan highlighted legal certainty and cautioned against ambiguity regarding the treaty’s relationship with other international agreements. Costa Rica and Brazil supported stronger recognition of international environmental law, while CSOs supported strong reference to international human rights and environmental standards, stressing the treaty should complement existing frameworks while strengthening access to remedy.
Afternoon session
In the afternoon meeting, deliberations on Article 3 (Scope) concluded. Thereafter, the Chair-Rapporteur invited general comments on the draft instrument and inputs on the future direction of the treaty process.
On Article 3.3, NGOs, the Global Labour Movement, and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives advocated a broad scope covering domestic human rights law and internationally recognised human rights, including environmental rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the rights of HRDs.
Palestine, as well as some CSOs emphasised that the draft LBI should recognise the primacy of human rights over private international law, including international trade and investment law. Palestine, supported by civil society groups, also called for the preamble to recognise the right to self-determination, including sovereignty over natural resources.
Regarding Article 12 (Mutual legal assistance), Japan opposed proposed provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, arguing they could conflict with the Hague Judgments Convention. Related concerns were raised by Iceland regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction and potential conflicts with existing international law instruments. However, CSOs expressed support for strong, effective enforcement mechanisms and cross-border cooperation.
China proposed a reference to the right to development in the preamble to the LBI. The EU and UK rejected this proposal, arguing that it could undermine the universal, indivisible and interdependent nature of human rights.
The importance of explicit recognition and protection of HRDs was repeatedly highlighted by CSOs. ISHR and Franciscans International noted Business and Human Rights Centre’s database of attacks on HRDs, which recorded nearly 800 cases in 2025.
The main business intervention, delivered jointly by the IOE and USCIB, challenged key provisions on liability and jurisdiction. They also requested a direct exchange with the Chair-Rapporteur, while several Global South countries and CSOs cautioned against corporate capture of the treaty process.
The Chair-Rapporteur announced that a revised draft will be published in February 2027. States and CSOs requested the opportunity to make submissions on the text prior to publication. Some NGOs also called for hybrid participation options in the future to facilitate the participation of HRDs facing financial, travel and visa-related constraints to travel to Europe.