Morning session

The second day of the 12th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) focused primarily on Article 14 (Consistency with international law), highlighting whether investment agreements should be interpreted consistently with state’s human rights obligations, before turning to Article 15 (Institutional arrangements).

Discussion in Article 14 centred on the relationship between the proposed legally binding instrument (LBI) and existing trade and investment agreements. Brazil, South Africa, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Palestine supported retaining language intended to ensure that human rights obligations are not undermined by other international agreements.

By contrast, the EU, UK, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan expressed reservations regarding the provision’s legal implications, its compatibility with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and its application to existing and future agreements.

Civil society organisations (CSOs) recommended stronger human rights safeguards in the article. Labour and trade union organisations, called for explicit references to ILO Conventions, freedom of association, collective bargaining, forced labour protections, and stakeholder participation.

CSOs also asked for environmental harm to be adequately addressed by the LBI and stressed concerns relating to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms (ISDS), and the impact of investment agreements on communities in the Global South. The technology sector was specifically mentioned with one organisation highlighting forced labour risks in electronics supply chains, while another stressed that Article 14.5 should reflect the realities of the digital economy by expressly covering digital trade agreements and provisions relating to cross-border data flows, source code, algorithms and digital services.

Discussion on Article 15 examined the mandate and powers of the future Committee. States generally emphasised the primary role of States Parties in implementation and oversight, while CSOs called for meaningful stakeholder participation, follow-up mechanisms and communications procedures. Palestine together with several CSOs supported the creation of an International Tribunal to close persistent gaps in corporate accountability where national systems fail to provide effective justice for victims. In the discussion on the proposed International Fund for Victims, many states supported clarification that the contributions would be voluntary. Brazil proposed references to Indigenous Peoples and people of African descent among those eligible for support, while Palestine advocated inclusion of persons living in conflict-affected and occupied territories Some CSOs proposed ensuring the provision remained broad enough to cover marginalised groups and women.

Afternoon session

In the afternoon, discussion of the Chair’s proposed revisions to the draft LBI resumed with article 16.3 on business activities in conflict-affected areas. Several states and CSOs welcomed clearer state obligations to ensure businesses identify, prevent and mitigate heightened human rights risks. Palestine, Cuba and several CSOs called for measures beyond due diligence, including prohibiting certain business activities and relationships and restricting imports and exports linked to human rights abuses. Many states, including Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Qatar, Iceland, the UK, South Africa and the EU, as well as some CSOs, called for qualifying the proposed obligation to terminate business activities or relationships to ensure responsible disengagement, taking into account its impact on affected rightsholders. Business organisations opposed mandatory disengagement. A CSO proposed that states pay special attention to the integration of digital technologies into military and surveillance systems in conflict-affected areas.

Article 16.6 on undue business influence over public decision-making generated significant discussion. States broadly supported its objective but differed over the wording. Palestine, Costa Rica and some CSOs sought stronger language establishing an obligation on states to adopt protective measures. Egypt, Iceland, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the UK and the EU sought greater clarity on “undue political influence”, some emphasising the need to preserve legitimate business participation in policymaking. Business representatives called for deletion of the provision.

The day concluded with the Chair-Rapporteur summarising intersessional consultations on articles 1–3 before opening discussions on his proposed amendments. On the definition of “victim” (Article 1.1), Cuba, Brazil, Palestine and several CSOs welcomed the inclusion of affected communities, with some also supporting the inclusion of persons harmed while assisting victims or preventing abuses. The Gulf Cooperation Council, Japan, the UK and the EU raised concerns about the breadth and clarity of the definition’s , while business representatives opposed its expansion and asked for a redraft.