Morning session

On the fourth day of the 11th session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIWG), discussions on the redrafting proposals emerging from the intersessional thematic consultations on Articles 4 to 11 continued.

The fourth proposal relates to states’ duties to prevent business human rights abuses, including through adopting human rights due diligence (HRDD) measures (Article 6.1 and 6.2). The UK noted that it could not support the provision because it includes mandatory HRDD. Japan also suggested more flexible language in relation to HRDD. Several states, including the EU and Vanuatu, and civil society organisations (CSOs) appreciated the addition of “protection of the environment” as a relevant factor in HRDD and called for the mainstreaming of environmental considerations throughout the legally binding instrument (LBI). The US Council for International Business (USCIB) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) strongly opposed the inclusion of environmental considerations in HRDD. USCIB also objected to the requirement to ensure the meaningful participation of individuals and select groups in developing and implementing laws, calling it “not democratic”. Several CSOs emphasised the importance of enhanced HRDD in situations of occupation and armed conflict.

The fifth and sixth proposals relate to access to remedy. CSOs cautioned that states’ obligation to remove obstacles to access to justice should be immediate, rather than progressive. CSOs emphasised that principles like forum non conveniens and the placement of the burden of proof on claimants – who typically have less access to information than defendant companies – are obstacles to accessing justice and should be specifically addressed in the LBI. The USCIB and IOE strongly defended these principles.

The seventh proposal relates to legal liability. Several states welcomed the wording that allows a degree flexibility for states, while CSOs highlighted that it may restrict the basis of liability. The USCIB and IOE raised strong objections to this provision, particularly in relation to the potential for directors and shareholders to be held individually liable.

During the discussions, CSO Friends of the Earth International objected to the presence of business at the 11th session, referring to the role of corporate lobbying in the LBI negotiations. IOE objected to this intervention and reminded that opinions should be expressed “in the respect of established rules”. But CSOs cited the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires states to protect public health policies from the “vested interests of the tobacco industry”.

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

Afternoon session

The afternoon session continued with discussions on the Chair-Rapporteur's redrafting proposals on Article 8 (Legal Liability).

State participation in the discussion was limited. The EU sought clarifications and made some comments, while Japan argued that the newly proposed wording of Article 8.3 (8th proposal), which seeks to clarify the conducts subject to liability, was too vague and ambiguous. CSOs were generally supportive of this proposal but pointed to shortcomings, including the lack of clarity on criminal liability.

Regarding the 9th proposal, which introduces a new paragraph to establish joint and several liability for companies that fail to prevent human rights abuses by persons “with whom they have a business relationship,” CSOs reacted very positively, although many questioned its restriction to failure to prevent. The USCIB and IOE rejected the proposal as “unacceptable,” arguing that it would impose liability for actions beyond companies’ control and expand responsibility to impractical levels.

The discussion then turned to the redrafting proposals for Article 9 (Jurisdiction), which aim to clarify the definition of domicile (10th proposal) and introduce a provision on forum necessitatis (11th proposal). The EU sought clarifications, Japan expressed reservations about the 10th proposal, and Palestine raised concerns over the removal of the provision which refers to the place of “principal assets” as a jurisdictional basis. Mexico and Palestine welcomed the forum necessitatis proposal. CSOs strongly supported the forum necessitatis provision. In contrast, the USCIB and IOE rejected both proposals, arguing they create legal uncertainty and promote extraterritorial jurisdiction, creating a hierarchy of legal systems that favours those of “industrialised and well-developed states”.

After the discussion on the proposals, the Chairperson-Rapporteur presented the OEIGWG’s 2026 draft roadmap. It was approved following his responses to states and non-state stakeholders, including a clarification that no new draft of the instrument will be produced ahead of the 12th session.

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