On October 29, 2020, fourth day of the 6th session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations, stakeholders discussed Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the second revised UN draft treaty on business and human rights.
(This article only focuses on States’ interventions and does not include interventions by other stakeholders such as NGOs. Proposed amendments below are non-exhaustive.)
Proposed amendments
| States remarks (by order of participation) | Article 12. Mutual legal assistance and international judicial cooperation | Article 13. International cooperation | Article 14. Consistency with international law principles and instruments |
| Brazil | Seems to establish excessive burden upon States in a way that is not proportionate to the aim of the treaty. | ||
| Russia | §9: Necessary to defend the broader possible set of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement and not just limit it to ordre public. | Need to enumerate either all the principles as defined under international law related to cooperation between States or otherwise refrain from singling out one principle to the detriment of other principles. | |
| Mexico | §1-4: Delete. | ||
| China | Clearly distinguish judicial assistance in civil and criminal litigation. Regarding the recognition and enforcement of criminal judgements, which concerns the issue of sovereignty, the text should not stipulate, otherwise it would be difficult to gain universal acceptance among States. | When it comes to foreign aid and international cooperation, sovereignty and discretion of States should fully be respected. | Treaty should balance promoting human rights and development. |
| Palestine | §5: Include reference to humanitarian law. §5a: Strengthen the language to ensure that existing trade and investment agreements comply with the provisions of the treaty and the principle of primacy of human rights. §5b: Amend to ensure that all trade and investment treaties are in line with human rights and humanitarian obligations. Inclusion of new §5c “To this effect, new trade and investment agreements shall be designed, negotiated and concluded to fully respect the States parties human rights obligations under this instrument and its protocols and related human rights and humanitarian conventions and instruments…”. | ||
| Chile | §3: Reconsider “more conducive”. | ||
| Ecuador | Add details expressing the type of barriers to access. §3a: Include reference on the possibility of having a mechanism which would allow to have additional provisional measures in connection to possible human rights abuses. | ||
| Egypt | §2: Add a new §f “Ensuring that any business activity undertaken by TNCs and OBEs domiciled or operating in their territory or under their jurisdiction or control do not deprive another State party of the ability to realise human rights through persons within its jurisdiction”. | ||
| Armenia | Add reference to the protection of personal data during the information supply between the parties. | ||
| Azerbaijan | §1: Principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity are key for ensuring any further cooperation. | ||
| Panama | §10a: Unclear, annex should provide the list of human rights abuses covered by the treaty. Add new §12 bis on mutual legal assistance and cooperation when a State is not party to the treaty, taking the example of other instruments such as the Rome Statute. | §2a: Include reference to other public officials, parliamentarians and the judiciary. |
| States remarks (by order of participation) | Article 15. Institutional arrangements |
| Brazil | What are the estimate costs of the institutional arrangement? Assess the need of having a committee and a conference of States parties as it seems excessive. |
| Russia | Functions of existing bodies may overlap with the functions of the committee. The procedure for electing the members of the committee will not make it possible to ensure the participation from every country. |
| Panama | §1b: Need to clarify the type of expertise which is required from members of the committee. |
| China | Reservation on the necessity and feasibility of establishing a committee. Functions of existing bodies will overlap with the functions of the committee. |
| Mexico | Need to have a financial impact evaluation of the mechanisms. §7: Unclear on how the fund will operate. |
| Namibia | Need clarity on the criteria to appoint the members of the committee. Need clarity on the outcome of the work of the committee and on the relevancy of creating the committee. |
| Chile | Concern on the relevancy of creating a committee. |
One thought on “Summary of the consultations on the UN draft treaty on business & human rights (day 4)”