5th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations
Human Rights Council
Date: 14 October 2026
Language: Floor (Original)
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/es/asset/k1n/k1nttffsux?lang=floor
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

Presidente-Relator [28:24]:

Buenos días a todos, excelencias, distinguidos delegados, distinguidos representantes. Declaro abierta la 5.ª reunión del 12.º período de sesiones del grupo de trabajo intergubernamental de composición abierta sobre las empresas transnacionales y otras empresas con respecto a los derechos humanos. Antes de reanudar nuestros trabajos esta mañana, deseo referirme a un asunto que ha sido puesto en conocimiento de la secretaría y esta presidencia. relatoria. En efecto hemos tenido conocimiento de que se habría se habrían tomado fotografías de personas presentes en esta sala sin su consentimiento. E incluso de que la persona o personas en cuestión no habrían desistido cuando se solicitó que no lo hicieran. Al respecto, deseo recordar a todos los participantes que, conforme a las normas aplicables para las conferencias en el sistema de las Naciones Unidas, bajo ninguna circunstancia se poderán tomar fotografías, ni grabar vídeos de ninguna persona en la sala 12, sin haber obtenido su expreso consentimiento. La flexibilidad limitada que se ha conseguido en el marco del grupo de trabajo, que permite a los participantes grabar sus propias intervenciones. Se circunscribe estrictamente a este fin y en ningún caso se extiende a fotografiar o filmar a otras personas sin su consentimiento. de producirse nuevamente una conducta de este tipo, la presidencia relatoría solicitará la intervención inmediata de las Naciones Unidas, incluso en lo relativo a la acreditación de las personas involucradas. Confío en que este recordatorio sea suficiente y agradezco a todos los participantes su gentil cooperación en relación con esta cuestión. Bien. Continuando con la reunión de ayer e comenzaremos ahora con e el intercambio con respecto a la propuesta diez, artículo 1.2 impacto adverso en los derechos humanos. Había hecho la presentación de la de la propuesta al finalizar la reunión ayer en la tarde, por lo cual entonces ofrezco ahora la palabra, en primer lugar a los Estados, que deseen intervenir con propuestas o comentarios con relación a esta propuesta de de de revisión. Propuestas alternativas al artículo 1.2. Bien, tienen ustedes en pantalla Algún Estado desea intervenir en este momento?

Bien no parece

Ser. Brasil Brasil tiene la palabra


Brazil [32:15]:

Thank you Chair just to quickly support your proposal, including affected communities and eliminating internationally recognized on 1.2, just to support. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [32:29]:

Japón tiene la palabra.


Japan [32:42]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. First of all, we appreciate the deletion of internationally recognized, as suggested in the Terra Porters Proposal ten from the perspective of eliminating ambiguous expressions from the definition definitions. That being said, simply stating a human right would potentially and encompass every and all human rights, and therefore, we would like to emphasize that definition of adverse human rights impact should be revised to make it narrower. Moreover, a human right in this article is related to the definition of all human rights in article 3.3 that will be discussed later. And we consider it necessary to make the scope of the term human rights consistent throughout this draft draft Avi. Also, we suggest striking out the phrase or groups of persons of affected of affected communities for the same reason as we mentioned regarding Article 1.1. From this perspective, Article 1.2 should be revised as follows. quote, a diverse human rights impact shall mean a harm arising in the context of business activities, which corresponds to a reduction in or removal of a person's ability to enjoy a human right under international human rights treaties to which state party is a party. Unquote. Let me add that we reverse reserve the right to revisit this proposal at a later date, depending on the revision revision of other articles. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [34:26]:

Muchas gracias al Japón.


State of Palestine [34:44]:

Thank you Mr. Chair. We maintain our proposal to expressed previously to delete the definition this definition, adverse human rights impacts, and consolidated into 1.3. Indeed, adverse human rights impact describes only the passive position of the person affected, and it borrows from the logic of common law and private law, which is concerned with harm or impact on a contract, not with a human rights violation. It departs from international human rights law, which does not treat harm to a right as an impact. Any impairment or restriction of a right is a violation. The current wording also produces a circularity. 1.3 defines an abuse as an adverse human rights impact. Turning an outcome into a cause. So deleting 1.2 and defining the abuse or violation directly by the conduct and the harm it causes would resolve both problems. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [35:46]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. Cuba tiene la palabra


Cuba [35:56]:

Muchas gracias señor presidente. Podemos apoyar las propuestas hechas por el presidente en torno a eliminar la frase International Recognized y también agregar la dimensión colectiva de los impactos, de los impactos adversos en los derechos humanos. Simplemente quisiéramos reiterar nuestra posición de que necesitamos ser coherentes con el alcance de texto y por lo tanto, propondríamos agregar después de context of business activities, poner of transnational character o of transnational corporation. También somos flexibles en cuanto a la propuesta que hizo la delegación de Palestina de unir este este, texto junto al artículo 1.3. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [37:02]:

Muchas gracias a

Cuba. Algún otro estado desea intervenir. Bien si no es el caso entonces el Reino Unido tiene la palabra.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [37:28]:

Thank you, Chair. Sorry. We continue to have concerns that this definition is not clear or precise enough, which has implications for the ability of states and businesses to implement the treaty treaty's requirements. We join Japan in welcoming the removal of the phrase internationally recognized, which we consider a legally imprecise term. We would suggest that the term human rights should be tethered to international human. rights law. We would also think that the phrase corresponds to lacks clarity. We would be grateful for the clarification on what this means and what constitutes a reduction or removal of the ability to enjoy human rights. when talking about harms from businesses. This raises key questions about the conduct we would want to regulate. It is essentially conduct that would be a violate. Is it essentially a conduct that would be a violation if the state was the duty holder or is it a lower threshold? For example, when considering qualified rights, are there qualified qualifications and would proportionality come into play? Also, we query if we need the phrase the ability before to enjoy? Could we simply say to enjoy? And furthermore, the addition of groups of persons affected communities in this paragraph also suggests that human rights can be held collectively, which is not an accurate reflection of current international human rights law in the UK's view and in line with comments we made yesterday. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [39:02]:

Algún otro estado desea intervenir? Bien, no parece ser el caso. Continuamos entonces ahora con las intervenciones de los representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra a Alliance Defending Freedom.


ADF [39:28]:

Mr. Chair rapporteur, definitions determine the scope of state's party's obligations and so must meet the requirements of legal certainty and determinacy. In our assessment, the definition of adverse human rights impact does not. First, it does not clarify how severe a reduction in a person's ability to enjoy human rights must be, or whether the conduct must be wrongful to qualify as an adverse impact. The consequence is that because an adverse impact is a constituent element of abuse under Article 1.3, even lawful conduct in connection with business activities could potentially qualify as an abuse. A state, by contrast, incurs responsibility only where its conduct meets the criteria that international human rights law sets for a violation. Second, because it speaks of a person's ability to enjoy human right, the definition does not clearly require that the conduct actually impair that enjoyment. Third, the proposed extension to group of persons and affected communities risks detaching the definition from concrete individualized harm. If left unresolved, such imprecision can create a perverse incentive for business enterprises to adopt overly restrictive compliance measures that may curtail the very human rights and fundamental freedoms the instrument seeks to protect. We concur with the chair rapporteur's assessment that the term's function lies principally in the definition of human rights abuse. Taking into account the proposals for a comprehensive reformulation of Article 1.3, we therefore recommend the leading article one, two, as several delegations have previously proposed. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [41:08]:

Gracias. Cedo la palabra Georgetown University.


Change the Law Limited [41:17]:

Thank you, Chair and distinguished delegates. This is a statement by Helena Stefano Stepco of Georgetown University on behalf of Change the Law Limited. Change the Law agrees with the chair's proposals and also agrees with the legal experts previous paper that this definition should include the right to a healthy environment. Article one. 1.2 would say adverse human rights impact shall mean harm arising in the context of business activities, which corresponds to a reduction in in or removal of a persons or group of persons or affected communities, ability to enjoy human rights, including the right to a healthy environment. Thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [41:57]:

Muchas gracias. Palabra La Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [42:08]:

Thank you Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We have supported this definition in its current form, which is known and understood by states, business and other stakeholders. The chairs background notes notes that the current set of definitions appears to function adequately. We are therefore not supportive of the redrafting as it stands for three reasons. First, we are concerned by the deletion of internationally recognised. This removes the encode to un gaming principles 12, under which the responsibility to respect refers to international internationally recognized human rights. Without it, the the definition will refer to any human right, opening the door to diverging interpretations across jurisdictions and to rights that lack an agreed definition in. a legally binding treaty. Second, we note that the reference to arm arising in the context of business activities brings some precision by linking the definition to business activities. However, it does not establish a causal link. Any harm occurring around the business activity could still fall within scope. In line with the UNGPs, the definition should refer to impacts that a business causes or contributes to. Third, the extent extension to groups of persons in affected communities further widens the circle of potential claims and adds to the uncertainty as to who may bring a claim and on what basis.


Presidente-Relator [43:33]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC · global labor movement [43:44]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labor movement. Chair, we can broadly support the suggested drafting changes to Article 1.2. However, we will have further comments on the concept of human right abuse, as it is linked with business activity at the property time. Chair, we particularly appreciate the consequential amendment to the chair proposal on the definition of victim to include groups of persons or affected communities. Similarly, we will comment on the questions of internationally recognized human rights under Article 3.3. Thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [44:26]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Séptima.


CETIM · representante [44:34]:

Gracias señor presidente. Soy Bernardo. Caalchol, Maya Echchi en Guatemala, Centroamérica y representante de la Asamblea Regional del Pueblo Maya Echchi, y hablo a nombre de SETI, miembro de la campaña global de las comunidades indígenas. Las comunidades indígenas de mi región han luchado contra la impunidad de las corporaciones y en la defensa de nuestro territorio durante décadas. durante décadas. El artículo 12 propone una definición del concepto de impacto adverso sobre los derechos humanos. Esta terminología deriva del enfoque propio de derecho corporativo y corporativo y se aparta de la lógica del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el que cualquier impacto, daño, restricción o incumplimiento de una obligación constituye una violación que es el único término jurídico apropiado. Dicho lenguaje sitúa a las empresas en el centro del instrumento, en lugar de las víctimas y comunidades afectadas, y que en consecuencia son presentadas como sujetos pasivos. Además, consideramos que incluir esta definición resulta intrínsecamente restrictivo y limita gravemente el ámbito de protección de este tratado. En Guatemala y, en particular, en el territorio Maya Echi, las empresas transnacionales que se dedican a la minería, al monocultivo y a la instalación de hidroeléctricas, desviando por varios kilómetros los ríos de deteriorando nuestro territorio, secando los manantiales de agua, realizan una brutal violación de nuestros derechos humanos, del derecho al agua y del derecho a la vida. A nuestra cultura, cultura y forma de vivir como pueblo indígena. Además, cuando las comunidades reclamamos colectivamente la defensa de sus derechos ante el Estado, la respuesta es la criminalización. criminalización que consiste en iniciar el montaje de de procesos penales, encarcelamiento y fabricando pruebas falsas. Es el caso que me ha tocado vivir, porque yo he estado más de cuatro años en la prisión, a consecuencia de que una empresa transnacional llegó a desviar un sagrado río que le pertenece a mi pueblo, el pueblo maya. Así que yo lo he sufrido esta criminalización y ahora que tengo la oportunidad de estar ante estos micrófonos y que me escuchen diferentes representantes representantes de estados, pues quiero denunciar que en estos momentos hay cientos de órdenes de captura sobre personas de mi pueblo, que es el pueblo maya, por defender sus derechos. Por eso me extraña que la representación de Guatemala, del Estado de Guatemala que está en esta asamblea, no haya hecho ninguna intervención hasta ahora, que es un momento y histórico para contribuir a la defensa de los derechos humanos y la protección del territorio, frente al accionar de las empresas transnacionales. En consonancia con la posición histórica de la campaña global, insistimos en emplear el término violación, y que se entiende intrínsecamente relacionado con el incumplimiento de las obligaciones jurídicas y la vulneración de los derechos consagrados en este tratado en el derecho internacional. Además, las empresas transnacionales podrían instrumentalizar instrumentalizar este concepto, argumentando que sus actividades están provocando impactos y no violaciones, eludiendo así su responsabilidad, dado que impacto adverso sobre los derechos humanos es un concepto vago que podría eludirse sin apropiarse remedio ni reparación. Gracias, señor presidente.


Presidente-Relator [48:52]:

Muchas gracias. Bien, este

Este fue el

Último orador de la lista. Agradezco a todos los Estados y a los representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes por sus contribuciones, de las cuales he tomado debida nota. Corresponde ahora examinar la 11.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de abuso de derechos humanos del artículo 1.3. Su objetivo es mantener la distinción entre abuso y violación de derechos humanos, en consonancia con los instrumentos sobre responsabilidad del Estado y con el derecho internacional. Internacional de los Derechos Humanos evitando utilizar ambos términos como un concepto único. Esta distinción ha estado presente en las deliberaciones de este grupo de trabajo. incluida la 11.ª sesión, en relación con diversas disposiciones del instrumento. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales, Un número importante de delegaciones apoyaron reservar el término abuso para la conducta empresarial, y el término violación para los incumplimientos atribuibles a los estados. Mientras que otras propusieron también definir ambos términos por separado y utilizarlos según corresponda a cada caso. Al respecto es preciso recordar que la referencia a los abusos, busca centrar la atención del instrumento en los casos en que la empresa sea la autora material del impacto adverso, mientras que una violación de derechos humanos en entiende como una acción u omisión atribuible al Estado, lo que constituye el incumplimiento de una obligación internacional. En este sentido, El instrumento jurídicamente vinculante podría. En el instrumento jurídicamente vinculante podrían coexistir disposiciones que sólo hagan referencia a un abuso. Otras que refieran a una violación y otras que hagan referencia a un abuso o violación. Todo ello dependiendo del sentido específico de la disposición y la misma se refiere a uno u otro caso. Esta diferenciación contribuye a evitar confusiones conceptuales en un instrumento que reafirma, aclara o establece diversas obligaciones estatais para regular la conducta de actores privados, teniendo presente que los Estados ya tienen la obligación de garantizar los derechos, humanos frente a actores no estatales en virtud de otros tratados del derecho internacional consuetudinario y de los principios generales del derecho. Para ello se tuvieron en cuenta en particular los artículos 2458 y 11 de los artículos sobre la responsabilidad del Estado por hechos internacionalmente. ilícitos. Y los principios rectores 1 y 4 con sus respectivos comentarios. Sobre esta base, la presidencia relatoria sugiere definir el abuso de derechos humanos como un impacto adverso en los derechos humanos que resulta de actos u omisiones de empresas transnacionales y otras empresas, incluidas entidades estatais y no. estatales que tienen lugar en el contexto de actividades empresariales. Esta formulación, parte del impacto adverso, definido en el artículo 1.2, identifica expresamente a los autores de la conducta con la terminología de la resolución 26 barra nueve del consejo de derechos humanos. Y armoniza la redacción con la expresión. en el contexto de actividades empresariales fin de la cita, utilizada a lo largo del texto. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar, a los Estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 11 de reformulación del artículo 1.3. La unió, Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [54:08]:

Three, on the definition of human rights abuse, we understand the intention to distinguish business related abuses from violations attributable to states. In that context, we seek clarification about what is meant by state and non state entities. In particular, are state entities intended to refer to state owned enterprises? conducting business activities? And how would this be distinguished from state responsibility under international law in this context? It would be helpful to ensure consistency with articles 1.4 and 1.6, including following the proposed removal of the expressed reference to state owned enterprises from article 1.4. we also would like to reiterate our view that limiting the lbi to transnational corporations or business activities of transnational character in this context and in the rest of the draft LBI, does not reflect the universal nature of human rights or the approach of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights, on which the corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive builds. This concern also applies to the references and further considerations accompanying Articles 1.3 to 1.6.


Presidente-Relator [55:44]:

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea. Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [55:52]:

Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam

Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam

Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam Madam. retaining a clear distinction between human rights abuse referring to business conduct and human rights violation, referring to conduct under the responsibility of states. However, when looking at the wording of Article 13 alongside Article 14, we do wonder whether introducing other business enterprises no, we do wonder whether introducing references to transnational corporations and other business enterprises into this definition in this article is the best place for it. And we bring this up as the chair's own background note on proposal. 12, for article 1.4, indicates that perhaps this LBI's transnational focus may best be addressed or captured in the provisions that that are about purpose and scope rather than here in the definitions chapter. So yeah, all this to say that we are supporting we supported we are basing this off of the chair's background notes on proposal 12. We think that this could apply to proposal 11 as well. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [57:23]:

Muchas gracias a

Islandia.


Speaker 26 [57:36]:

السيد الرئيس.

Colleagues بشأن الفقرة 1.3 فقط نود التأكيد على أهمية الحفاظ على التمييز بين تجاوزات مؤسسات الأعمال والانتهاكات المنسوبة إلى الدولة، وشكرا السيدة الرئيسة.


Brazil [58:21]:

Thank you, for the proposals initially I would just like to echo the European Union in seeking clarification as to the purpose of state and non state entities and how it relates to 1.4 there. But as a general matter, throughout the text, we reiterate our preference for the term violations. Either abuse and violations or simply violations. We do believe that applying this term to corporate acts is doctrinally sound, is consistent with the nature of international human rights obligation, and is supportive by UN treaty bodies. And indeed, the reason is that legal order cannot grant corporations standing and protections as direct subjects of international rights, while simultaneously not considering the them from the status of potential violators of international obligations. Nevertheless, we remain committed to a constructive dialogue to foster consensus. And if you allow me a quick word on the previous paragraphs regarding still the collective nature of rights as being as being recognized by international law, we do believe that, they are, that international human rights instruments have moved past an individualistic conception of legal harm, and this is reflected in several instruments, and including in the UNGPs and UN basic principles, to the right of remedy and reparation. As to why we insist on keeping affected communities throughout the text. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [59:59]:

Muchas gracias al

Brasil Cuba tiene la palabra.


Cuba [1:00:12]:

Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Cuba apoya la definición propuesta de abuso de derechos humanos y celebra que este párrafo se haya alineado con el alcance del instrumento. Creemos que es muy importante reflejar este alcance en los artículos de las definiciones y, por tanto, agradecemos esta propuesta. Además, proponemos colocar un punto final después de la referencia a otras empresas. Consideramos que la mención adicional a entidades estatales al es el lenguaje del objetivo de dar claridad a la definición y podría generar confusión con el término violaciones de derechos humanos, que Cuba considera un concepto aparte.


Presidente-Relator [1:00:53]:

Muchas gracias.

Muchas gracias a Cuba el estado de Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [1:01:08]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On article 1.3, the chair's proposal argues that violation should be reserved for states. We respectfully disagree for three reasons. First, the chairs text defines abuse as conduct that results in an impact. That is the active dimension of the definition, and it should be characterized as a violation. The term abuse creates a false hierarchy between states that violate human rights and corporations that merely abuse them. It implies that transnational corporations cannot commit violations and therefore have no obligation to respect human rights. Under the prevailing theories of human rights in international law, conduct is a violation because of the offense to human dignity, not because of who caused it, whether a state, a person, or a corporation. Second, the text covers state and non state entities. Conduct of state owned enterprises can be attributable to the state under the Articles on State Responsibility. so it is definitely a violation. Third, where corporations are involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Their conduct breaches peremptory norms of international law and cannot be adequately described as mere abuse. Referring to violations ensures that the instrument reflects the legal gravity of the conduct and the evolving understanding of corporate involvement in internationally wrongful acts. We therefore propose replacing abuse with violation or as a compromise, and at the very least, to add violence violation after abuse. This terminology should be standardized throughout the treaty for coherence and consistency. In addition, the chair's proposal omits indirect impacts and the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. We maintain our proposal from the May inter intersessional, which covers direct and indirect harm and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable. environment. We add to it conduct that causes or contributes to harm, harm that is threatened as well as harm already suffered, and a failure to exercise human rights due diligence so that the definition anchors both liability and prevention. Finally, we also see no need for 1.3 to refer to specific legal forms such as transnational corporation corporations and other business enterprises. Legal forms are already referred to by way of an indicative list in the definition of business relationships in 1.6. It is helpful to keep them there and keep the list indicative because any particular form or structure may become outdated with time. Paragraph 1.3 should instead refer to conduct, quote, in the context of business activities of a transnational character, unquote, in line with the scope wording we proposed for 1.4 and 3.1. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:04:16]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. Thank you,


Japan [1:04:20]:

Mr.

Chair. We support the intent of the suggested language in the chair rapporteur's proposal from the perspective of limiting the LBI's scope to acts or emissions by business activities. Given this stance, we suggest deleting transnational cooperations and other in the table reporters proposal in order to make it clear that human rights abuse means extra emissions only by business enterprises. Acknowledging that the phrase international cooperations and other business activities, derives from Human Rights Council resolution 269. We consider that our tradition is also more appropriate from the perspective of consistency with the UNGPs. This is because the UNGPs require business enterprises to protect human rights, regardless of the scale of the enterprises concerned or the sectors in which they operate, while local businesses registered in the term in terms of relevant domestic law, are excluded from the definition provided in the resolution 26/9 of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Therefore, article 1.3 should read as follows, quote, Human rights abuse shall mean an adverse human rights impact that results from acts or omissions by business enterprises, including state and non state entities that take place in the context of business activities. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:06:07]:

Muchas gracias al Japón. Arabia Saudita tiene la palabra.


Saudi Arabia [1:06:16]:

شكرا سيدي الرئيس. فيما يخص المادة المقترحة 1.3 ترحب المملكة بما تضمنته الصياغة المقترحة من ربط تعريف هيومن رايتس أبيوزز بأفعال مؤسسات الأعمال وحالات إمتناعها. وبما أكدته خلفية المقترح من أهمية التمييز بين التجاوزات المنسوبة إلى مؤسسات الأعمال، والانتهاكات المنسوبة إلى الدولة، غير أن التعريف لا يزال يفتقر إلى عناصر السببية المباشرة والجوهرية وأن وإمكانية التوقع، كما أن العبارة المقترحة الجديدة المرتبطة بالكيانات الحكومية وغير الحكومية قد تفهم على أنها تدرج سلوك الدولة وأجهزتها ضمن هذا المفهوم، بما يتعارض مع التمييز بين تجاوزات مؤسسات الأعمال والتجاوزات المنسوبة للدولة، للدولة. وعليه تقترح المملكة أن يقصد بهيومن رايتس أبيوزز الأثر السلبي الناتج بصورة مباشرة عن أفعال أو حالات إمتناع جوهرية، للشركات عبر الوطنية وغيرها من مؤسسات الأعمال، متى كانت العلاقة السببية بين الفعل أو الامتناع والأثر كافية وواضحة، ويمكن توقعها بصورة معقولة، مع حذف العبارة المرتبطة بالكيانات الحكومية وغير الحكومية، والنص على أن التعريف لا يخل بقواعد القانون الدولي المتعلقة بمسؤولية الدول وبحصانات الدول وممتلكاتها وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [1:08:13]:

Muchas gracias Arabia Saudita. El Reino Unido tiene la palabra.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:08:25]:

Distinction between violation, which typically refers to state action and abuse, and that aligns with the conceptualisation of the Protect Respect for Remedy Framework, which is a consensus document. However, abuse is normally used in non binding instruments, and currently we do not consider that the term does have a legal content. Indeed, the protect respect remedy framework, which refers to responsibilities for business rather than obligations, However, were the term to be given a legal content in a treaty, we would prefer a tighter definition, and we would recommend including a clear and more narrowly defined causal connection between business activity and adverse human rights impacts. In that regard, we do recognise the removal of in connection with but note that it's drafted acts or omissions is extremely. broad, and we will consider the insertion directly as suggested by Saudi Arabia in that regard. In short, the UK preference is to have amendments that reflect direct causation by business activity that do not imply states and business have the same international legal obligations. We also agree with the rationale of the comments regarding transnational corporations, and other business enterprises from Japan and Iceland. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:09:59]:

Muchas gracias al Reino Unido. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento? Bien no parece ser el caso. Continuamos entonces ahora con las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. cedo la palabra alliance defending freedom


ADF [1:10:32]:

Gracias señor presidente. As currently drafted the definition of human rights abuse is framed by reference to adverse human rights impact, and so carries over its imprecision. This definition covers any act or omissions in connection with business activities that results in an adverse impact. It does not specify the standard of fault or the required nexus between the conduct, the business activity, and the impact. Moreover, because adverse human rights impact is so broadly defined, virtually any reduction in a person's ability to enjoy a right could qualify as abuse. Mr. Chair rapporteur, we see merit in defining this term by reference to human rights violations. While violation has generally been understood to be reserved for state conduct, abuse could be its counterpart for business enterprises in a manner that ensures that comparable conduct is judged by. comparable standards. Based on previous textual proposals, we therefore offer the following reformulation. Human rights abuse shall mean any act or omission by a transnational corporation or other business enterprise in the context of business activities that directly causes harm to the enjoyment of a person's universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, to a degree that will constitute a violation of those human, rights and fundamental freedoms if carried out by or on behalf of a state within the territory of that state. This would establish a direct causal link to the harm, confine liability to concrete harm suffered by individuals and set the threshold by reference to the standards governing the responsibility of states for human rights violations. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:12:20]:

Muchas gracias.

Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [1:12:34]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We note an improvement in this proposal, which now starts from the adverse human rights impacts and links it to the conduct of business center. enterprises. However, results from does not distinguish between impacts a business causes, contributes to, or is merely linked to, a distinction a distinction that is central to the yuan guiding principles. Combined with the reference to omissions and the broader in the context of business activities, deaths will leave companies exposed for any impact they did not prevent. As we have consistently consistently stated, the definition should refer to adverse human rights impacts caused or contributed to by business activities. Moreover, the new reference to transnational corporations and other business enterprises prejudiced the debate on scope under article three, and introduces a distinction based on legal form, while the scope of this instrument should apply to all business activities. We echo the comments made by many states delegation in this room in that regard. As regards the reference to state and non state entities, here again, state owned enterprises should naturally be covered by this instrument on unequal footing with privately owned companies without the need for special rules or distinctions Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:14:03]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra a Cidse.


CIDSE · Copae, CIDSE y sus organizaciones miembros [1:14:18]:

Intervengo en nombre de Copae, Citse y de sus organizaciones miembros Manos Unidas, Miserior, CCDF, Terres Solidaridad, Burger LinkedLink, Trocaire, y faxtenon. Valoramos positivamente la formulación propuesta por la presidencia en el artículo 1.3 que vincula la vulneración de los derechos humanos con las repercusiones adversas para dichos derechos derivadas de sus actos u omisiones en contextos de actividades empresariales. Sin embargo lamentamos que no se haya hecho mención explícita de los impactos directos e. indirectos de las actividades empresariales. Asimismo consideramos que falta un elemento muy importante El reconocimiento explícito del derecho a un ambiente. Seguro limpio. saludable y sostenible dentro de la definición de vulneración de derechos humanos. Sobre todo en contextos de explotación minera química de metales. Dada la importante degradación ambiental asociada a muchas actividades empresariales y sus consecuencias directas para los derechos humanos. Este reconocimiento es fundamental para garantizar que el instrumento jurídicamente vinculante ofrezca una base coherente para la prevención. La rendición de cuentas y la reparación. Por ello instamos a los estados a reincorporar esta referencia explícita en El artículo uno punto 1.3. Gracias señor presidente.


Presidente-Relator [1:15:53]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Georgetown University.


Change the Law Limited [1:16:00]:

Chair and distinguished delegates. I'm Helena Stefano Stecko of Georgetown University. This is a statement made on behalf of Change the Law Limited. Change the Law agrees with the chair's proposals and agrees with the legal experts previous suggestion in the Nunn paper that business relationships should should be included in the text of 1.3. We also suggest states include additional wording for the environmental impact. Article 1.3 would say human rights abuse shall mean an adverse human rights and environmental impact that results from acts or missions from transnational corporations and other business enterprises and through their business relationships, including state and non state. entities that take place in the context of business activities. Thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [1:16:48]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra, Global Forum for the Defense of the less privileged.


Speaker 47 [1:16:58]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. We recommend simplifying article 1.3 to ensure that the definition of human rights abuse is clear and avoids unnecessary repetition. The text should cover acts and omissions connected with business activities that result in adverse human rights impacts. This clarification is important because the definition provides the foundation for understanding which harms the instrument seeks to address. We support the objective of the amendment, provided that the final wording remains precise and preserves the distinction between business related abuses and violations attributable gracias


Presidente-Relator [1:17:39]:

Cedo la palabra a International Federation for Human Rights.


FIDH [1:17:47]:

Thank you

Mr. Chair. I deliver the statement on behalf of FIDH. The proposed new definition has the effect of clearly demarcating and restricting the scope of the LBI to abuses or harms caused or contributed to by businesses. This clearly leaves out violations by the state, even in the context of business activities. The Chair's explanatory note indicates that state violations are still sufficiently covered by treaties and other sources of state's obligations under international human rights law. Nevertheless, it must be clear that state owned enterprises or the activities of states acting in a private, commercial or economic capacity are clearly included. In addition, we would like to raise a concern regarding the understanding of the phrase other business enterprises, if the meaning of this is other business enterprises that undertake activities of a transnational character. And while we agree that the LBI should pay particular attention to TNC and OBE that undertake activities of a transnational character, and to prioritize them for purposes of regulation and accountability. We do not believe that the concept of human rights abuse itself should be restricted to abuses or harms involving only such enterprises. All business enterprises of all sizes, natures, organizational structures and other characteristics are capable of causing or participating in human rights abuses. A domestic company with no activities of a transnational character may commit a human rights abuse, even though it may fall outside of the scope of the LBI. So the fact that the LBI focuses on TNCs and OBEs should not be understood as implying that other business activities are incapable of. committing or contributing to human rights abuses. There are two ways possible ways of addressing this. First, the definition clarified that it's intended to operate with within the context and for the purposes of the LBI, and is without prejudice to broader definitions or understandings of human rights abuse under other legal regimes or normative standards. Another way is for the definition itself to be reformulated so as to make clear that all business enterprises are capable of causing or being involved in human rights abuses. Such a definition could read could read as follows. Human rights abuse shall mean an adverse human rights impact that results from acts or remissions of business enterprises, including state and non state activities that take place in the context of business. activities, without prejudice to the responsibility of states for human rights violations under international law. And this should not affect the scope of the LBI obligations, which could still remain predominantly focused on TNC and OBE undertaking activities of interest national character. As a final separate point, we would also like to highlight that the proposed new definition does not work well with other parts of the text. So for example, jurisdiction under Article 9.1 A is established where the human rights abuse took place. So the shift from acts and omissions to adverse impact under the proposed new definition of human rights abuse would redirect the focus of this article from the place where the acts or omission occurred, to the, place of the harm, which is already addressed by Article 9.1 B. At the same time, it would leave the place where the acts or omissions that led to or resulted in the harm in certain circumstances without jurisdiction. And Article 10.2 B presents similar challenges. So these are just two examples to illustrate that the repercussions of the changes in the definition on all the parts of the text, and the need to undertake holistic analysis to to determine whether the new definition works well across the entire text. And if there might be a need for changes in other, articles to make it work. Thank you very much.


Presidente-Relator [1:22:17]:

Franciscans International.


FI [1:22:20]:

Thank you,


FI · ESCRNet, feminist for a binding treaty, Franciscans International, the Center for International Environmental Law, International Service for Human Rights [1:22:21]:

Mr. Chair. This is a joint statement with ESCRNet, feminist fraud binding treaty, Franciscans International, the Center for International Environmental Law, International Services Service for Human Rights. We note that the chair's proposal for article 1.3 does not reference the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, as was explicitly mentioned in the third draft. And even though several states proposed its reinclusion during past negotiations, as by Palestine in the current session, also as mentioned in the chair's proposal and summary. This would this would be consistent with the recognition of the rights by the UN Human Rights Council and general Assembly, and with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on state obligation with respects to climate change, which concluded that the human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights, as well as the interamerican court of human rights advisory opinion. It is important to explicitly mention the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in article one. We know the incorporation of environment in the 2025 chair proposal for article six, and think that its incorporation in the definition of human rights abuse would ensure greater coherence for the implementation and interpretation of the treaty. Similarly, and as is suggested by various delegation, we would also encourage the inclusion of the right to a healthy environment in the preamble. Lastly, on the discussion on the language on abuses and violation, we also support Brazil and Palestine state. Thank you.


ITUC · global labor movement [1:24:04]:

I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. Chair, we can broadly support the new such as language and agree with the rationale of maintaining a distinction between the concept of human rights abuse and violations for the recent seat. As we mentioned in relation to Article 13, it would be important to take account of any consequential amendment that may need to be made in light of this change. Chair, we acknowledge that the LBI intends to create a specific state's duty regarding prevention and remedy of harm suffering in the context of. transnational business activities and relationship. Thus, it has designate a specific term to refer to the harmful conduct of private sectors as human rights abuse that should be prevented or remedied. However, chair, while noting that the conduct of of state owned enterprises is covered by the term human rights abuse, as we have said from the outset of this process, a reference to human rights by violation will be necessary to highlight the fact that human rights abuses by corporate activities can be accompanied by participation of a state agent. For example, chair, imagine a group of workers who decide to organize a union because their wages are unpaid and conditions are unsafe. The company then engages in anti union practices and dismiss the workers, in retaliation for exercise their right to freedom of association. This is an example of abuse. Then the workers gathered faithfully to protest the dismissal and demand that their rights be. respected. The company, instead of addressing their concern, called the police. The police dispersed the demonstration with force and violence, and several workers are injured. That that chair, is a violation. It is true that such conduct by state is also regulated under different sources of international human rights law. Nevertheless, either here in the definition, or as noted in the known paper, a general provision on the duty of states to respect and ensure human rights in the context of business activity is needed. Whether a standalone provision or as part of the duty of prevention or implementation. Such a clause would serve to ground in this instrument the existing state obligation under international human rights law, from which other specific obligation regarding prevention access to remedy and international cooperation with regard to transnational business activities will follow Thank you Chair.


Presidente-Relator [1:26:50]:

Je vous

Remercie, Monsieur


CETIM · membre [1:26:59]:

Le Président, je suis Pierre Maison, membre de la confédération paysanne de la Via Campesina. je m'exprime au nom du CETI. Nous sommes membres de la campagne mondiale. La proposition relative à l'article un trois est problématique car elle se focalise exclusivement sur la notion d'abus et d'impact négatif sur les droits humains, omettant celle de violations qui devraient être incluses ici. Cependant, en droit international des droits humains, il n'existe pas de véritable différence entre ces deux termes. Les principaux traités des Nations unies relatifs aux droits humains, tels que le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, le pacte le pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, la convention contre la torture et la CEDAW parle de violations et non d'abus, comme mentionné par le Brésil. Le terme abus provient principalement de la pratique liée au principe directeur des Nations unies relatif aux entreprises. et aux droits de l'homme, un cadre juridique volontaire, aujourd'hui reconnu comme largement insuffisant. La définition d'abus s'écarte de la logique du droit international des droits humains, selon laquelle tout impact sur un droit reconnu ou toute restriction à son exercice continue une violation. Une telle terminologie place les entreprises au cœur de l'instrument plutôt que les victimes et les communautés affectées qui. se trouvent ainsi présentés comme des sujets passifs. En droit international, des droits humains, une violation ne se réduit pas à une formule figée. Elle constitue un manque objectif à une obligation, quelle que soit le sujet auquel incombe cette obligation qui porte atteinte à un droit reconnu. Imposer une définition comme celle de ce document reviendrait à créer des catégories fermées, susceptibles d'être exploitées pour échapper à toute responsabilité. Cela limiterait également l'interprétation évolutive du droit international des droits humains et risquerait de laisser sans réponse des préjudices émergents tels que les. impacts indirects, la destruction de l'environnement ou les violations liées au pouvoir numérique. Nous vous demandons donc, Monsieur le Président, de veiller à ce que l'article 1,3. soit focalisé sur le terme de violation et que ce dernier soit utilisé dans l'ensemble du texte, comme la grande majorité des pays du Sud l'ont proposé durant ces dernières années de négociations. Une violation est une violation indépendamment de qui la provoque. Les droits fondamentaux des paysans et des paysannes consacrés par la déclaration de l'ONU sur les droits des paysans sont violés. Je répète, sont violés par les transnationales de. l'agro-business en criminalisant nos semences, en s'accaparant l'eau, en s'accaparant nos terres, en polluant nos territoires. Je vous remercie.


FIAN · FIAN International and FIDH [1:30:01]:

Thank you Chair. We read this statement on behalf of FIAN International. and FIDH. We also supported the explicit inclusion of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in Article 1.3 on the definition of human rights abuse, which has now been taken out, and as stated by other civil, society colleagues, we seek for its reinclusion. We also wish to highlight that the proposed distinction between human rights abuses and violations places undue emphasis on the identity of the actor rather than the human rights harm suffered by affected communities. This approach risks overlooking situations in which both state and corporate conduct is inseparable. For example, where a transnational agribusiness benefits from the forced displacement of communities carried out by state security forces. The harm cannot adequately be understood solely through the acts or omissions of the company or the state in isolation. The state may be directly responsible for violations, while the company may have contributed to or benefited from those violations, potentially giving rights to its own liability. The definition should capture the full situation of harm without predetermining who may be legally responsible. The key is that limiting the treaty to transnational business activities should not mean limiting responsibility to the conduct of corporations alone. States as well as state owned enterprises may facilitate, enable, participate in, or fail to prevent violations connected with those activities, and the treaty must address these situations as well. Therefore, should a definition of Article 1.3 be retained, it should preserve the broad scope of business related adverse human rights impacts, recognize that state and non state actors can both contribute to the same harm, avoid treating corporate abuses and state violations as mutually exclusive, and preserve existing international law and state responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Presidente-Relator [1:32:01]:

Muchas gracias. Este fue el último orador de la lista. Agradezco la contribución de todos quienes han participado en este intercambio con respecto al artículo a la reformulación propuesta del artículo 1.3. Pasaremos ahora a la 12.ª propuesta de reformulación relativa a la definición. de actividades empresariales del artículo 1.4. El objetivo de esta reformulación es mejorar la precisión técnica del texto, y alinear esta definición con la de relación empresarial. Evitando posibles superposiciones conceptuales por lo cual los invito a analizarla en conjunto con la propuesta. 14 sobre el artículo 1.6. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales, un número importante de delegaciones apoyaron una definición indicativa y no exhaustiva capaz de abarcar los sectores con riesgos significativos para los derechos humanos. Varias delegaciones apoyaron incluir expresamente la extracción, Por los impactos de las industrias extractivas. Y otras la financiación y la inversión. Mientras que otras advirtieron sobre los posibles vacíos que generaría eliminar la referencia a las empresas estatais. Sobre la referencia al carácter transnacional, varias delegaciones reiteraron las posiciones expresadas anteriormente respecto del ámbito de aplicación del instrumento. Al respecto, algunas observaron que la lista indicativa puede enriquecerse siempre que se mantenga abierta y que la dimensión transnacional puede reflejarse en la declaración de propósito. En el artículo dos en el ámbito de aplicación artículo tres. y en varias disposiciones operativas, más que en las definiciones. Otras delegaciones también destacaron que existe una superposición entre las definiciones de actividades empresariales y de relación empresarial. Por lo que conviene decidir en cuál de ellas se debe incluir la enumeración de estructuras o formas. Formas empresariales. Con estos elementos la reformulación propuesta efectúa los siguientes ajustes. Primero añade la referencia a las actividades comerciales. Y precisa al inicio que las actividades pueden ser realizadas por una persona natural o jurídica o a través de sus relaciones en. Empresariales. 2. Enriquece la lista indicativa que se mantiene abierta con la exploración extracción procesamiento, así como con la financiación inversión y seguros. Tercero. Traslada al artículo 1.6 la enumeración de entidades empresas Empresas estatais instituciones financieras fondos de inversión empresas transnacionales y empresas conjuntas. Toda vez que la definición de relación empresarial abarca tanto a entidades estatales como no estatales. E incorpora expresamente a las instituciones financieras, los fondos de inversión y los grupos empresariales transnacionales. 4.º incorpora por primera vez una referencia expresa a la inteligencia artificial y a las actividades realizadas por medios electrónicos o digitales, algo a lo que ha hecho referencia el grupo de trabajo sobre empresas y derechos humanos. Y que también hizo referencia el alto comisionado para los derechos humanos al inicio de nuestra reunión. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 12 de reformulación del artículo 12. 1.4. La Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [1:37:00]:

And thank you for introduction and the additional clarifications provided. We would nevertheless seek additional clarification to the meaning of other activity which remains unclear to us. Is it intended to encompass non economic or not for profit activities? Secondly, also by whom corporations or any natural or legal person, given the already broad opening wording and that is followed by non exhaustive list, we wonder whether additional examples are necessary. For example, artificial intelligence would already appear to be covered. as its development or use constitutes a business activity. Singling it out expressly may not add clarity. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:37:51]:

Muchas gracias. Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [1:38:01]:

Thank you Chair, on proposal 12 we support the streamline the the definition of business activities, particularly the references to exploration and extraction, financial services, and digital technologies. We do favor an open ended list that covers all business entities, including state owned enterprises, which I trust may be included in the phrase business relationships as drafted in 1.6, which we'll see in a moment. But on AI language, while we welcome its inclusion, we feel it might need a little bit of work and redrafting to be in line with recent international instruments on the topic. such as the UNESCO Ethics on AI Document or Global Digital Compact. I believe the phrase tends to be going around the UN's digital emerging and related technologies. is. Anyway, just believe that some work needs to be done. And maybe it's also included already in electronic or digital means, but then I would also seek additional clarification on that. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:39:11]:

Muchas gracias. Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [1:39:24]:

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.. Mr.

Respectfully note that artificial intelligence is a technology, and it's a technology rather than an activity per se, and therefore we suggest editing the text so that it refers to activities involving the development deployment and use of artificial intelligence for precision purposes. And this applies to article the redrafted article 1.6. as well. Thank you.


Japan [1:40:22]:

Thank You Mr. Chair. Taking into account that the concept of business activities relates to criminal punishment, the definition provided in the reporters proposal 12 should be revised to make it narrower and clearer in the same way as article 1.3. To be precise, article eight in the current draft LBI requires each state party to adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish a system of legal liability, including criminal liability of of legal and natural persons, conducting business activities for human rights abuses that may arise from their business activities or relationships. On this premise, the phrase business activities defines the scope of subjects and acts of human rights abuse subject to punishment. Therefore, business activities must be narrowly and clearly defined consistent with the definition of human rights abuse in Article. 1.3. Besides Article 1.4 and the reporter's proposal 12 states that business activities means any economic commercial or other activity, but it is unclear what kind of activities is included in other activity. Some examples are provided in the text, but there is a reservation of but not limited to. Thus, it is unclear what kind of business business are expected to be included. Therefore, business activities should be defined more narrowly and clearly. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:42:01]:

Muchas gracias Algún otro estado desea intervenir? no es el caso. El estado de Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [1:42:28]:

Thank you, Chair. If you allow me, I will comment on 1.4 and 1.5 jointly, as my comments on them are related. On 1.4, we welcome the restructuring of this definition, which moves from listing types of business actors to listing business activities themselves. We welcome the addition of exploration, extraction, financing, investing, in, ensuring and artificial intelligence. We propose that trade also be included. Replacing financial institutions and investment funds with financing investing insuring insuring is acceptable to us as long as Article 1.6 brings joint ventures, financial institutions, investment funds, and transnational corporate groups into the definition of business relationship, giving the growing negative impact of transnational financial actors on human rights worldwide. Article 1.4, defines only the objective scope, the activity itself, and on its own, it does not say that the activities concerned are those of a transnational character. Two separate definitions in 1.4 and 1.5, one of business activities and the other of business activities of a transnational character, distinguish between activities that are transnational and activities that may not be. That's that risks broadening the scope beyond that beyond transnational corporations and other enterprises of a transnational character. For that reason, we propose to merge 1.4 with 1.5 into a single definition of business activities of a transnational character, meaning activities undertaken by transnational corporations, and other enterprises of a transnational character, including through subsidiaries, affiliates, and value chains. This would also prevent the fragmentation of liability. It would make corporate structuring irrelevant to who is covered and would keep value chains inside the definition itself. If you will kindly indulge me, I will read out the merged definition that we propose, which I am also happy to share with the chairmanship and any interested delegation. The definition would read business activities of transnational character shall mean any economic, commercial, or other activity. Including but not limited to the exploration development extraction manufacturing production processing transportation distribution trade commercial. commercialization marketing and retailing retailing of goods and services. And financing investing and ensuring undertaken by transnational corporations and other enterprises of a transnational character, which can be private, public, or mixed, including through subsidiaries, affiliates, supply and value chains, and other business relationships. This shall also include artificial, intelligence and activities undertaken by electronic digital and platform based means. Such activities include those carried out by a parent company, companies owned by the same parent or stockholders by entities that it directly or indirectly owns, controls, manages, or substantially influences as a part of its economic group or by entities with which it maintains. direct or indirect business relationships forming part of its value chain. For the purposes of this instrument, business activities of transnational character are defined as those A under undertaken in whole or in part in more than one state or jurisdiction, or B undertaken in one state, but we're a part of their ownership decision making preparation, planning direction control design financing sourcing technology data flows processing manufacturing storage distribution commercialization. provision, insurance, certification, or disposal takes place through any direct or indirect business relationship in another state or jurisdiction. Or C, undertaken in one state as part of a value chain connected to activities, operations, or business relationships in another state or jurisdiction, including where the activity contributes to enables or benefits from transnational business operations or finally D undertaken in one state but producing effects and impacts or consequences in another state or jurisdiction. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:47:29]:

Muchas gracias al Estado de Palestina. por parte de los estados Cuba pidió la palabra adelante por favor.


Cuba [1:47:47]:

Muchas gracias señor presidente agradecemos la propuesta 12 del presidente sobre el artículo 1.4. Creemos que es importante que la lista de actividades empresariales no sea extensiva para que no se quede desactualizada con el tiempo. También damos la bienvenida al lenguaje sobre inteligencia artificial que se incluye en este párrafo. Y en este sentido podemos apoyar las propuestas del colega de Brasil realizadas sobre este tema. También consideramos que tener dos definiciones, una de actividades comerciales y otra de actividades comerciales de carácter transnacional, no contribuye a la claridad y coherencia de del texto. Por lo tanto, proponemos fusionar los artículos 1.4 y 1.5 en una sola definición que sea más clara y aporte a la coherencia del texto. Consideramos que es muy importante que se mantenga el alcance del instrumento legalmente vinculante. Si se deja muy amplio, el alcance sería mucho menos ambicioso. o sea, los artículos que se desarrollarían después serían mucho menos ambiciosos. Por eso hemos sido insistentes a lo largo de todo el texto en guardar el alcance y circunscribirlo a las actividades de empresas. transnacionales. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [1:49:12]:

Muchas gracias a Cuba. Arabia Saudita tiene la palabra.


Saudi Arabia [1:49:24]:

المملكة دعمها لجهود الرئيس المقرر في تبسيط التعريف المعني بالفقرة 14 وترحب بحذف القائمة الإرشادية. لأشكال الكيانات، غير أن المملكة تلاحظ أن التعريف لا يزال يشمل أي نشاط اقتصادي أو تجاري أو غيره، بما يخفل المعيار التجاري الذي يميز الأنشطة التجارية عن غيرها، ويمتد إلى الأنشطة التي تمارس من خلال علاقات الأعمال، بما يدخل في هذا التعريف النطاق الكامل لتعريف علاقات الأعمال الواردة في المادة 1.6 كما تم إضافة الصياغة المقترحة إلى القائمة الإرشادية أنشطة بعينها، مثل الإستكشاف والإستخراج، والمعالجة والتمويل والاستثمار والتأمين، بما ينطوي على ابراز انتقائي لقطاعات محددة دون ان يضيف اثرا قانونيا الى قائمة غير حصرية. وعليه تقترح المملكة أن يقتصر التعريف على النشاط التجاري الذي يمارس بغرض تحقيق الربح، مع حذف عبارة أو من خلال علاقات الأعمال، والاكتفاء بالقائمة الإرشادية الواردة في المسودة التفاوضية، مع حذف الإشارة إلى الإنتاج منها لتداخلها مع التصنيع، والاتساع مدلولها بما قد يشمل الأنشطة الإستخراجية التي تقترح المملكة حذف الإشارة إليها، ولا يترتب في هذا السياق على ذلك أي فراغ في التعريف، لكون القائمة إرشادية غير حصرية، إذ تظل جميع الأنشطة الربحية التجارية مشمولة به. كما تقترح المملكة النص على شمول هذه الأنشطة عند ممارستها بوسائل إلكترونية أو رقمية، بما في ذلك باستخدام الذكاء الاصطناعي، والنص على أن التعريف لا يشمل الأعمال التي تؤدى في ممارسة السلطة الحكومية. وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [1:51:32]:

Muchas gracias. 呃。


China [1:51:57]:

删除 了 对 工商业 企业 类别 的 列举， 因为 法律文书 范围 是 限定 在 跨国公司， 呃， 这是 我们 谈判 的 这个 最大 的 公约数， 过细 的 列举 企业 的 类别 会 是 得 条款 过冗杂 呃 从而 难以 达成 一致 中方 也 认为 这一 做法 应该 在 该条 的 其他 款项 中 也 得到 贯彻 呃 比如 一点 一点 三条 中 列举 的。 国家 实体 和 非国家 实体 呃 也 建议 删除 谢谢 主席先生。


Presidente-Relator [1:52:38]:

Muchas gracias a China. El estado de Qatar tiene la palabra.


Qatar [1:52:50]:

Thank you, Chair. The state of Qatar, like a number of states, agrees with the deletion of the phrase and any other business relationship undertaken by a natural or legal person due to its ambiguous nature. And we also welcome the deletion of the indicative list of entity forms so as not to specify the particular sectors. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:53:15]:

Muchas gracias

Al estado. de de Qatar. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento Bien si no es el caso entonces. Pasamos a las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra you Chair.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [1:54:05]:

I speak jointly on behalf of IOE, and the ucib. We are not supportive of this proposal. The redrafting worsens an already vague definition what is meant by other activity, electronic or digital means or artificial intelligence. It is unclear whether developing, selling or simply using it will fall within scope when businesses of all sizes now rely on digital tools in their everyday operations. Many small enterprises for instance, rely on mobile phones for their financial transactions through intermediaries beyond their control. How would state parties transpose such terms into their law and enforce them? Adding financing, investing, insuring could bring within scope those who simply hold passive investment in a company, which would be both impractical and unfair. The redrafting also falls business relationships into the definitions, further blurring both concepts and deletes the explicit reference to state enterprises, which which which must remain covered. This definition is too broad and imprecise to provide legal certainty. We therefore call for its deletion. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:55:18]:

Muchas gracias. Microphone please.


association twin and the electro power Consortium, as well as Crispina Research Institute in Indonesia [1:55:47]:

I'm speaking on behalf of association twin and the electro power Consortium, which worked to combat forced labor in the electronic industry, as well as in Crispina Research Institute in Indonesia. We would like to thank the chair for including in the proposed redrafting of selected provision of the legally binding instrument, a clear and strength definition of business activity, under Proposal 12 for Article 1.4. This definition encompasses the entire continuum of activities, including exploration, extraction, and production. and production. This is utmost important, as our research conducted over the past seven years on Indonesian nickel mining and processing industry has revealed a recurring patterns of vulnerability with the nickel processing industry. These vulnerabilities are shaped by systemic conditions within employment relationship, including the normalization of excessive overtime, threats of losing overtime pay and essential allowance, disciplinary pressure exerted vote directly through verbal retirements and indirectly through the use of workplace application. Economic pressure arising from wages that are fairly sufficient to cover the high cost of living for workers. and their family and language barrier that constrain workers ability to negotiate, question, or refuse dangerous order. Taken together this condition creates a coercive working environment that blurs the line between compliance and coercion, and may heighten the risk of forced labour within. the nickel supply chains. Therefore, we wish to reiterate the importance of retaining the explicit inclusion of the different stages of business activities set out in. the chair's new proposal 12. Thank you, chair.


Presidente-Relator [1:58:09]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Georgetown University.


Change the Law Limited [1:58:19]:

Distinguished delegates I'm Helena Stefano Stecko of Georgetown University. This is a statement made on behalf of Change the Law Limited. agrees with the previous comment by the legal experts in a non paper that the list should be indicative rather than a closed list. However, the wording is illustrative of the areas of greatest risk and vulnerability. Therefore, if the wording remains, then extraction should remain, and domestic and gig workers should be added. In a previous intersectional thematic consultation, one of the legal experts suggested states should consider adding wording, for AI and emerging technologies. Change the law agrees that AI should be added, including the governance of AI. Thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [1:59:06]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Franciscans International.

International.


FI [1:59:20]:

We support the additional language proposed by the Chair in regard to business activities. In particular, we support the addition of exploration, extraction, and processing. The communities we work with have faced a variety of human rights abuses and environmental degradation as a result of mining activities. As the world began discussing the possibility of a just transition, indigenous peoples underscored that mining for critical minerals linked to the transition was green colonialism. We now see these critical minerals being targeted for use towards weapons and AI. Given this past, presence, and likely future context of predation based on the presence of minerals, we suggest that the Chair consider adding the reference to common Article I of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the preamble of the present LBI. On the restructuring of Article 1.4, which shifts from listing types of business structures to an indicative list, we can welcome the replacement of financial institutions and investment funds with financing, investing, ensuring, and we propose that trade also be included echoing Palestine's suggestion. However, our support for this change is conditional on Article 1.6 as suggested by the Chair to including joint ventures, financial institutions, investment funds and transnational corporate groups with the definition of business relationship. Given the growing negative impact of transnational financial actors on human rights worldwide, it is essential that they fall within the scope of this LBI. And lastly, we also support the inclusion of artificial intelligence and support an LBI that takes forward looking approach. Therefore, we could support Iceland's suggestion to include language on the development, deployment, and sale of AI. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:01:29]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC · global labor movement [2:01:41]:

Global labor movement. The definition of business activities, business activities of a transnational character and business relationship are interlinked, and we therefore agree with the need to streamline the text and align the definition definitions for effectiveness and clarity. We also support expanded reference to exploration, extraction, processing, financing, investing and ensuring, as well as the inclusion of artificial intelligence. We While we appreciate the rewarding of the article to bring reference to business relationships up top, we think that it will continue to make sense to refer to the specific business structures and forms in the definition of business activities. Ultimately, it needs to be made clear that business activities are conducted by undertakings carry on a trade or business, which at present is only articulate as a natural or legal person. As such, we believe that the reference to the specific business structure forms should remain and that there is no duplication, which with the definition of business relationship. Chair, we also know the reference to business enterprises in other parts of the text when referring to a specific conduct required of corporate actors. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:03:02]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Citse.


CIDSE · CIDSE y sus organizaciones miembros [2:03:11]:

Gracias señor presidente. relator, hablo en nombre de CITCE y de sus organizaciones miembros Manos Unidas, Miserior, Cesefd, Terc Solidaire, Brotherlygdelen, Trocker, Flashtenaction y KFOD. Acogemos con satisfacción la amplia definición de actividades empresariales que ofrece el presidente relator en el artículo 1.4. Acogemos con especial satisfacción que se abarque una amplia, gama de sectores y actores, incluidas las empresas públicas, las instituciones financieras, los fondos de inversión y las actividades relacionadas con la tecnología digital y, específicamente, la inteligencia artificial. Para mayor claridad, sugerimos unir directas e indirectas al término relaciones comerciales, a fin de garantizar que se abarque toda la cadena de valor. Este es un punto fuerte e importante de la propuesta, ya que refleja la diversidad y la complejidad de las actividades empresariales contemporáneas, directas e indirectas. Como sabemos, en los países empobrecidos donde trabajan nuestras organizaciones, socias locales, que hemos escuchado en esta sala en estos días, están afectando muy gravemente a las personas y al medio ambiente, a nuestra casa común. Animamos a los Estados a que mantengan este enfoque amplio y garanticen que sigan siendo coherentes con las definiciones de relaciones comerciales y actividades empresariales transnacionales que figuran en otros textos, de modo que el instrumento jurídicamente vinculante no deje lagunas en materia de protección. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:05:01]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra a la International Federation for Human Rights.


FIDH [2:05:12]:

We welcome the addition of commercial activity to the definition. However, the text retains the phrase other activity without further qualifications. This makes the scope of business activities potentially extremely broad. We recommend the limiting the scope of other activity by qualifying it with the use of terms such as ancillary related or supportive activity. activities. This would help circumscribe the term while at the same time being capable of capturing activities that may not be strictly economic or commercial in nature, but that business enterprises nevertheless undertake in support of these activities. This would include to give a few examples, lobbying and political engagement activities, participation in policymaking or multi stakeholder initiatives, government advisory, roles, philanthropic or CSR work, or even administrative or compliance activities that are necessary for commencing business activities, such as applying for a mining license or other type of permit. So there revised article could read as follows. Business activities means any economic, commercial, or other ancillary related or supportive activities undertaken by a natural or legal person, and so on and so forth. The use of terms such as ancillary related or supportive activities and other other terms could also be considered. Within the meaning of business activities would also help clarify the current definition of business relationships and their Article 1.6. Under this article, the purpose to conduct business activities is built into the definition itself. This makes the scope of business relationship too narrow as it can leave out relationships that are formed to support, facilitate, or advance business activities, but not to conduct business activities as such. For example, the relationship between business enterprises and professional experts such as auditors, lawyers, or engineers might be commercial in nature, but it does not have as its purpose conducting business activities. The same is true of an arrangement between a business enterprise and state authorities to provide security services or between a business enterprise and a professional lobbyist to advance the business interest in a given context. Including activities that are supportive of economic or commercial activities with, within the meaning of business activities would ensure that relationships that are formed to support business activities, but not to conduct business activities as such are also comprised within the meaning of business relationships, for the purposes of the LBI. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Presidente-Relator [2:07:54]:

Muchas gracias.


Speaker 89 [2:08:06]:

Thank you Mr. Chair. My name is Sargita Espanza. I speak on behalf of Tierra Directors. and the Rural Remains Assembly, a swatly, a member of the global campaign. On Article 1.4, we note with concern that the proposal didn't change much from the updated draft and we believe this is a missed opportunity to bring greater legal clarity to the objective scope of the instrument. We have supported the amendment to Article 1.5. 1.4 put forward by more than 60 global south states at the ninth session, because it anchors the scope where it belongs. On the conduct of transnational cooperation, national corporations and other business enterprises of transnational character. Yet the logic of the amendment must follow through to its conclusion. What this provision must define is not business activities in the abstract, but business activities on of a transnational character. The current architecture architecture with a general definition in Article 1.4 and a separate one in Article 1.5 is not merely redundant. Redundant It is structurally problematic. By drawing a line between business activities that are transnational and those that may not be, the text opens the door to a interpretation that extends the obligation of the instrument to purely domestic activity and even for SMEs. That will stretch the scope well beyond the mandate entrusted to this working group by. resolution 269. And it will dilute the very focus on transnational corporations that so many delegations have defended. We therefore propose matching at least one 1.4 and 1.5 into a single coherent provision that only defines business activities of a transnational character. As proposed by state of Palestine, we recommend building on the formulation presented by Palestine today, which is built upon the upon one presented by more than 60 states in 2023. The result is a definition that captures any economic or other activity undertaken by transnational corporations and other business enterprises of a transnational character. Whether private, public or mixed, including through subsidiaries, affiliates, supply and value chains, and other business relationships, as well as through, electronic, digital, and platform based means. This is a definition that reflects how transnational business operates in practice, closes closes their gaps through which responsibility is too often evaded and keeps this instrument faithfully aligned with resolution 269. In SRT, we SPs and women have been forced into contract farming in the sugar cane sector, which is controlled by UK based corporations. Our land has been grabbed and we have been denied control over. production and prices we receive for our crops. These violations of our rights to lend and fair prices undermine our livelihoods and constitute. a direct violation of our rights to full sovereignty, as enshrined in the UN declaration on the rights of peasants. We respectfully urge the chair and state to adopt our proposal of Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:12:15]:

Este fue el último orador de la lista agradezco a todos quienes han participado en este intercambio tanto representantes de estados como de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. He tomado debida nota de todos sus a. Comentarios y observaciones. Continuamos con la 13.ª propuesta de reformulación relativa a la definición de actividades empresariales de carácter transnacional del artículo 1.5, cuyo objetivo es clarificar la disposición y evitar calificativos ambiguos. Esta definición establece tres supuestos en los que una actividad empresarial adquiere carácter transnacional. Cuando se realiza en más de una jurisdicción o estado, cuando se realiza en un estado. Pero una parte significativa de su preparación, planificación, dirección, control, diseño, procesamiento, fabricación, almacenamiento, almacenamiento o distribución tiene lugar en otro. Y cuando se realice un estado pero tiene un efecto significativo en otro. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales algunas delegaciones propusieron eliminar el apartado C por considerar que el criterio de efecto significativo carecería de parámetros objetivos y otras lo. consideraron necesario para abarcar los daños transfronterizos como los derrames ambientales que se originan en un estado y producen efecto en otro. Se examinó también la propuesta de un artículo 1.5 bis que defina la expresión otras empresas. Con posiciones diferentes en cuanto a sus. implicaciones para las filiales y entidades constituidas localmente que realizan actividades transnacionales. A la luz de este intercambio, la presidencia relatoría sugiere centrar los ajustes en el apartado B en los siguientes dos aspectos. Primero se suprime el calificativo parte significativa cuya determinación podría lugar a interpretaciones divergentes. Segundo, se sustituye la exigencia de que dichas etapas tengan lugar a través de una relación empresarial en otro estado, por una formulación más amplia, según la cual la actividad implica la preparación, la contratación o adquisición, la planificación, la dirección, el control, el diseño, el procesamiento, la fabricación, el almacenamiento o la distribución u otras decisiones o acciones relacionadas con otro estado o jurisdicción. Los apartados A y C, se mantienen en su redacción actual únicamente con un ajuste de forma en el encabezado. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados, que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 13 de reformulación del artículo 1.5. Debo recordar que ya algunos estados se han pronunciado con respecto. con respecto a esta propuesta a este párrafo de artículo cuando tratáramos el artículo anterior. Bien ofrezco la palabra entonces a los Estados. En primer lugar, la Unión Europea.


EU [2:16:25]:

As regards Article 1.5 on the definition of business activities of transnational character, irrespective of the proposed adjustments that are proposed to its definition, we would like to restate our general concern about the proposal to limit the instrument to transnational business activities. As we said previously, this would not reflect the universal nature of human rights. rights and the approach of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to which the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is based, limiting the instruments to transnational corporations or business activities of transnational character, would send the wrong signal in terms of human rights protection and may create an uneven. field both for states and companies. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:17:24]:

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea. El Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo.


GCC [2:17:32]:

فيما يخص تعريف الأنشطة التجارية ذات الطابع العابر للحدود. في الفقرة 1.5 نقترح إعادة إدراج قيد، وهو تنصيص جزء كبير في الفقرة الفرعية، 1.5 ب، وضبط الإشارة إلى القرارات أو الإجراءات الأخرى المتعلقة بدولة أخرى، بما يضمن وجود روابط موضوعية كافية لإثبات العابر للحدود وعدم الاكتفاء بعنصر أجنبي محدود. وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [2:18:35]:

Muchas gracias. Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [2:18:48]:

Iceland supports the retention of sub paragraph c on significant effects in another state, as we attach great importance to capture trans boundary environmental harm, including harm to the marine environment. We understand previous reservations delegations have had on this sub paragraph as the term significant effect lacks a threshold. And we note that it may result in domestic activities with cross border impacts to be understood or applied as transnational with respect to this provision. And to address, questions or concerns about legal certainty, we suggest to clarify the threshold of sub paragraph C and draw from established that established standards and more specifically, especially in this context, the Espoo Convention. Our suggestion for the text is to change the reference to significant adverse effect or impact instead of effect, and we would be happy to further clarify or assist with the exact formulation as well as provide further sources for established standards. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:20:06]:

Muchas gracias a

Islandia Arabia Saudita tiene la palabra.


Saudi Arabia [2:20:20]:

السيد الرئيس فيما يخص المقترح للمادة 1.5 تؤكد المملكة أن تعريف الأنشطة التجارية ذات الطابع العابر للحدود. يكتسب أهمية محورية، إذ يمثل في ظل قصر نطاق الصك على هذه الأنشطة وفق ما تقترحه المملكة بشأن المادة 31. المدخل الى تطبيق الصك بأكمله، ومن ثم ينبغي ان يستند الى روابط موضوعية واضحة بين النشاط وأكثر من دولة على غرار الفقرة الفرعية الف. وتلاحظ المملكة أن الصياغة المقترحة للفقرة الفرعية ب حذفت عبارة جزء كبير من، وأضافت كلمة المشتريات وعبارة أو غير ذلك من القرارات أو الإجراءات المتعلقة بدولة أخرى. وفي هذا السياق فهي عبارة مفتوحة لا ضابط لها، بما يجعل أي عنصر أجنبي مهما كان محدودا كافيا لإضفاء الطابع العابر للحدود على نشاط محلي في جوهره. كما تلاحظ المملكة أن الفقرة الفرعية جيم، لا تزال تعتمد معيار الأثر الكبير في دولة أخرى، وهو معيار واسع بطبيعته، لا يستند إلى رابط موضوعي بين النشاط والدول أو الدولة الأخرى، ولا يحدد طبيعة الأثر أو صلته بالنشاط. وعليه تقترح المملكة استعادة عبارة جزء كبير من في الفقرة الفرعية ب، وحذف الكلمة المقترحة للمشتريات، إذ إن مجرد التوريد من الخارج سمة لأغلب الأنشطة التجارية المحلية، ولا يكفي لإضفاء الطابع العابر للحدود عليها. وتقترح المملكة حذف عبارة أو غير ذلك من القرارات أو الإجراءات المتعلقة بما يعيد إلى هذه الفقرة الفرعية عتبتها الموضوعية. أما الفقرة الفرعية ج. فتقترح المملكة انطلاقا من موقفها المعلن حذفها غير أن المملكة إدراكا منها لأهمية عدم استبعاد حالات الضرر العابر للحدود الفعلية، فإن المملكة تبدي مرونة في الإبقاء عليها شريطة قصرها على الحالات التي يمارس فيها النشاط في دولة واحدة، ويكون ويكون له أثر سلبي مباشر وكبير، ويمكن توقعه بصورة معقولة على أشخاص في دولة أخرى، وذلك بما يحافظ على معيار موضوعي واضح، ويحول دون التوسع في مفهوم الطابع العابر للحدود دون أن يمتد إلى الآثار غير المباشرة أو البعيدة. وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


China [2:23:34]:

الرئيس. muchas 关于 第十四点 五条 中方 在 上次 会议 中 提出， 提出 删除 C 项即 对 其他 国家 产生 的 重要 影响 但是 没有 反映 在 此次 的 修改意见 中 中方 依然 认为 该 措辞 的 具体 指向。 难以确定 因此 建议 删除 谢谢。


Presidente-Relator [2:24:27]:

Muchas gracias

Áchida. Japón tiene la palabra.


Japan [2:24:44]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We understand that article 15 which refers to business activities, which refers to business activities, transnational character is based upon the definition of business activity referred to in an article 1.4. Therefore, as long as we cannot agree on article 1.4 under this draft LBI, this point. We cannot agree on Article 1.5 for the same reason either. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:25:13]:

Muchas gracias al Japón. Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [2:25:23]:

Thank you Chair. On proposal 13, Brazil insists on maintaining subparagraph 1.5 c. We also, just similar to Iceland, think it's crucial for establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction in transboundary environmental disaster, a topic that's close to our heart. Now we hear the opposition to the significant effect in the room. We think it does establish a certain filter for applicability by requiring demonstrable impacts, substantial impacts on internet on on recognized human rights. But we'd be willing to to work on language that assuage other delegations concerns. We appreciate Saudi Arabia's flexibility on the matter and looking forward also to hearing Iceland's proposals to to assuage the concerns. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:26:23]:

Muchas gracias al

Brasil.

Cuba tiene la palabra.


Cuba [2:26:37]:

Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Muy rápidamente para reiterar que la delegación de Cuba sí apoya que haya una definición de actividades comerciales de carácter transnacional y que cuando se una con el punto 1.4 la definición que prime sea esta. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:27:01]:

Muchas gracias a

Cuba

Algún otro estado desea intervenir. Bien, no parece ser el caso, entonces procedemos con los oradores de Representantes de la sociedad civil y de otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra palabra Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.


Speaker 106 [2:27:45]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. We welcome and support efforts to clarify the definition of transnational business activities, particularly where planning, procurement, control, or other significant that decisions take place across borders. It is important that the definition captures the connections between business operations in different states rather than focusing only on where the final activity occurs. In addition, we recommend refining the proposed wording to ensure legal clarity while allowing the instrument to address business related human rights abuses that involve more than one jurisdiction. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:28:21]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [2:28:33]:

I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of this proposal. This definition is not needed and creates confusion as the instrument should apply to all business activities as stated previously. More, Moreover, the redrafting of Article 1.5 b removes the significant significant part threshold so that any preparation, procurement, or other decisions or actions related to another state however minor, will make an activity transnational. In addition, the significant effect criterion in paragraph C remains problematic for us. It lacks objective parameters and could capture diffuse indirect or cumulative effects that cannot be traced back to any specific activity, making the boundaries of this definition impossible to determine. This only confirms that the definition creates confusion, and we call for Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:29:33]:

Muchas gracias.


CIDSE · parlamento del pueblo Chinca de CIDSE y sus organizaciones miembros [2:29:39]:

Gracias señor presidente relator. Intervengo en nombre del parlamento del pueblo Chinca de CISDE y sus organizaciones miembros. Manos unidas Miserab CCFD Ter Solidari. breaker link del intro caire fasting action y K food. Señor presidente relator. Este artículo que pretende definir las actividades empresariales de carácter transnacional es de suma importancia para los grupos e individuos más impactados por estas actividades. Especialmente los pueblos indígenas quienes sufrimos esos impactos de una manera desproporcionada. Yo soy una mujer sinca de Guatemala Un pueblo que ha tenido que aprender a través de experiencias duras y frustrantes sobre El carácter nébula de las actividades transnacionales. Y como la ausencia de definición ampliamente consensuada. funciona para facilitar a las empresas transnacionales utilizar estructuras corporativas y relaciones comerciales complejas y opacas. Para evitar sus responsabilidades y denegar. a sus víctimas acceder a la justicia. Por ello acogemos con satisfacción el enfoque del presidente para definir las actividades empresariales de carácter transnacional en El artículo 1.5 a. través de la naturaleza y los efectos transfronterizos de la actividad. Consideramos que esto es importante porque la LBI debería abarcar situaciones en las que las operaciones empresariales. empresariales se desarrollan en diferentes lugares y sus repercusiones se extienden más allá de las fronteras. No obstante animamos a que se examine más a fondo la redacción del apartado B. En particular para garantizar que recoja adecuadamente las relaciones comerciales transfronterizas pertinentes directas e indirectas y las repercusiones sin crear lagunas de protección. Esto también debe leerse conjunto conjuntamente con los artículos 14 y 16. Y el artículo 31 que deben proporcionar una base suficientemente exhaustiva para definir el ámbito de la aplicación del instrumento. Gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:31:53]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC · global labor movement [2:32:02]:

Of the global labor movement. Chair, we welcome the deletion of the undefined and vague qualifying term significant, which could have led to unnecessary debates about what constitutes a business activity of a transnational character. Chair, the drafting change represents a significant improvement of the text. The deletion of business relationship in Article 1.4 b is fine when considering that the revised division of business activities states that such activities can be undertaken through business relationship. However, it will be important to track any further change down the line as the article 1.5 b is integral in adequately covering corporate relationships in global supply change. I thank.


Presidente-Relator [2:32:57]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra a International Collective in Support of Fish Workers.


ICSF · World Forum of Fisher People [2:33:13]:

I'm representing the World Forum of Fisher People, and on behalf of the ICSF as part of the global campaign, I present this. As Palestine's position, we also reiterate our call to merge both paragraphs four and five into a single provision and refer to TNCs and OBEs of transnational character, in line with the proposal supported by over 60 global south states. Having a separate abstract definition of business activities only dilutes the treaty's purpose and threaten to capture purely domestic enterprises and SMEs, exceeding the mandate of resolution 26 by nine, to maintain the co focus of this instrument, the only legally relevant concept to be defined as business activities of a transnational character. As Article 1.5 aims to determine what makes a business activity of a transnational character. It is important that these criteria avoid broadening the scope and equating business activities of transnational character to any cross border business. activities. Crucially, these criteria must reflect how transnational corporate power actually operates today through fragmentation and global value chains. To often, Transnational corporations outsource high risk polluting or exploitative operations to local suppliers and subcontractors, claiming that these abuses are purely domestic. As fisher people and communities, we see this in our territories, where transnational aquaculture, mining and shipping companies are using complex business structures to evade direct responsibility for violating the human rights of fishing communities and polluting the environment. They also escape the costs of environmental disasters, leaving affected communities unable to access remedies and reparations. As in the 2021 burning of the acceptable ship in Sri Lanka. To close this persistent loophole and in line also with Palestine's proposal. We suggest that the cha explicitly incorporate a criterion captured in activities undertaken within a single state as part of a value chain, specifically where the activity contributes to, enables or benefits from transnational business operations. This approach does not capture ordinary domestic businesses. Rather, it adheres to the economic reality of TNCs, ensuring that corporations cannot evade accountability by fragmenting their operations and outsourcing their harms. I thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [2:36:11]:

Muchas gracias este fue el último orador de la lista. Agradezco a todos quienes participaron en este intercambio Nos ocuparemos ahora de la 14.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de relación empresarial del artículo uno punto. 16. Que como se indicó al presentar la propuesta 12 busca alinear esta definición con la de actividades empresariales, evitando solapamientos o repeticiones conceptuales. Esta definición abarca cualquier relación entre personas naturales o jurídicas incluidas entidades estatales y no estatales para realizar actividades empresariales. Incluso a través de filiales, subsidiarias, agentes, proveedores, asociaciones, empresas conjuntas o cualquier otra estructura o relación y a lo largo de las cadenas de valor. La cuestión central discutida en las consultas temáticas interseccionales, fue la inclusión de las instituciones financieras y de las relaciones de financiamiento. Algunas delegaciones y organizaciones apoyaron incluirlas expresamente. Y otra delegación consideró que la definición vigente ya es suficientemente amplia. Al respecto se observó que si bien las instituciones financieras son proveedoras clave de servicios para las empresas. Y pueden estar directamente vinculadas en determinadas circunstancias con los impactos adversos de sus clientes no parecen estar plenamente cubiertas por la definición actual. Como referencia se tuvieron presentes el párrafo 17 del capítulo dos de las líneas directrices de la OCDE para empresas multinacionales sobre conducta empresarial responsable. Y el artículo tres, apartados d y p de la Directiva de la Unión Europea 2024 barra 1760 sobre diligencia de vida de las empresas en materia de sostenibilidad. En consecuencia, la reforma reformulación sugerida contiene tres elementos. Primero, incorpore en la lista indicativa las instituciones financieras, fondos de inversión y grupos empresariales transnacionales, elementos que se suprimen del artículo 1.4. Segundo elimina la remisión a lo dispuesto en el derecho interno del estado. con el fin de asegurar una aplicación uniforme de la definición. Tercero, incorpora, al igual que en el artículo 1.4, la referencia a la inteligencia artificial y a los medios electrónicos o digitales. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra, en primer lugar, a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 14 de reformulación del artículo 1.6.

La Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [2:40:04]:

Thank you very much. We would appreciate clarification of the added value of listing financial institutions and investment funds within a definition. a definition of business relationships. Their activities are already covered by the defined term business activities while considering them as vehicles of business relationships, as indicated by the word through, seems to overstretch the concept. Conversely, a reference to corporate groups could help clarify coverage by the qualifier transnational, again, but the qualifier transnational again would merit a reconsideration. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:40:54]:

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea el Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo tiene la palabra.


GCC [2:41:10]:

فيما يتعلق بالفقرة 16 نرى أهمية تقييد مفهوم علاقات الأعمال بالسيطرة أو النفوذ المباشر. وإعادة إدراج الإحالة إلى القانون الداخلي، وتجنب أي افتراض مسبق للمسؤولية لمجرد وجود علاقة تجارية أو استثمارية. وينبغي أن تقوم ضوابط تحديد المسؤولية على السببية المباشرة وقابلية التوقع المعقول والسيطرة أو التأثير الفعلي. ونؤكد كذلك أن مؤسسات الأعمال، المملوكة للدولة، ينبغي أن تخضع للمعاملة ذاتها المطبقة على مؤسسات القطاع الخاص عند ممارسة أنشطة تجارية، مع استبعاد الأعمال التي تؤديها الدولة في إطار ممارسة سلطتها الحكومية، وصون حسنات الدول وممتلكاتها بموجب القانون الدولي وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [2:42:11]:

Muchas gracias

A GCC. Algún outro estado desea intervenir? Cuba tiene la


Cuba [2:42:35]:

Palabra. Muchas gracias señor presidente. Nuestra posición sobre este artículo se alinea con nuestra intervención en los artículos 1.4 y 1.5. Damos la bienvenida a que se incluya lenguaje sobre tecnología digital e inteligencia artificial. Y consideramos igualmente que este párrafo incluye a las empresas transnacionales como una de las instituciones reguladas y no como centro del artículo, por lo que proponemos que ese lenguaje se centre en las relaciones, empresariales de corporaciones transnacionales. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:43:14]:

Muchas gracias a Cuba. Thank you, Mr.


Japan [2:43:24]:

Chair. As we have pointed out regarding Article 1.4, since the concept of business relationship also relates to criminal punishment in connection with Article eight, it should be defined more narrowly and clearly. The current text is based on the concept of business activities, which is not clearly defined in the first place. And as such, it is unclear what kind of relationship is intended by the phrase any relationship. We consider that the scope of the term business relationship should be clarified and the language revised accordingly. In addition, the vague scope of business relationship can make it difficult for business enterprises to reasonably predict what human rights abuses are attributable to which business partners could become subject to liability. Therefore, the scope of the term business relationship should also be defined more narrowly and clearly from this perspective, based on existing international frameworks such as the UNGPs and which business relationships are premised on a certain degree of relevance. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:44:36]:

Muchas gracias al Japón. Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [2:44:42]:

Yes thank you chair. We do warmly well. welcome the explicit inclusion of financial institutions and investment funds. And 1.6, we think it closes a loophole in the financing chain. We do see the value of including it both here and to mirror it in 1.4. In 1.6, especially because it triggers Article six on due diligence and on legal liability. So we do thank you for retaining the language there. On 1.6, we can support it. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:45:25]:

Muchas gracias al Brasil.


State of Palestine [2:45:34]:

Thank you Mr. Chair. On 1.6 we welcome the retention of the reference to value chains. We welcome the addition of financial institutions, investment funds, and transnational corporate groups. And we reiterate that our support for the restructuring of 1.4 depends on on it on them together with joint ventures remaining in this definition. We also welcome the deletion of the words as provided under the domestic law of the state, which would have let each state narrow the definition. We ask we propose that the definition state clearly that business relationships are not necessarily contractual. It should cover any state or non state entity linked to a business operation. product or service, even where the relationship is not cons contractual. As well as entities in the value and supply chain, including subcontractors and contract manufacturer, acturers and relationships that support or facilitate business activities. We also propose that it expressly include financial entities such as investors, shareholders, banks, and pension funds that finance the activities of transnational corporations because the financial capital that funds corporate activity must also fall within the instrument. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:46:59]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento. Bien si no es el caso entonces pasamos a las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores. relevantes. Cedo la palabra en primer lugar a Sumec. Señor presidente,


SUMEC · abogado defensor de derechos humanos [2:47:35]:

Soy Alir Uribe Muñoz. abogado defensor de derechos humanos, procedente de Colombia, intervengo a nombre de Sumet, Asociación para la Promoción y Protección de los Derechos Humanos, miembro de la campaña global. Queremos apoyar de manera importante que el artículo 1.6 del tratado vinculante incorpore el concepto sobre la relación comercial, con los conceptos de cadena de valor y responsabilidad solidaria. La cadena de valor es esencial porque da salida a la fragmentación internacional que tienen las empresas transnacionales que suelen dividir sus operaciones en diferentes etapas. La matriz o opera con filiales en uno o varios países que forman de manera aparentemente independiente, pero que tienen vínculos ciertos con la matriz. Esto sucede porque las grandes corporaciones trasladan etapas de la cadena de valor a varios países aprovechando ventajas de localización como la mano de obra barata y también para en unos casos evadir impuestos. Sin embargo la matriz mantiene la gobernanza. de la cadena de valor y la utiliza para maximizar la eficiencia de las ventajas competitivas. Le permite mejorar costos laborales accesos comerciales extraer recursos u otros tipos de ventajas. ventaja de producción o comercialización. Igualmente, la responsabilidad solidaria en la cadena de valor en las actividades empresariales de carácter transnacional es el mecanismo adecuado para evitar que estas grandes corporaciones eludan sus obligaciones frente a potenciales víctimas individuales o colectivas con el pretexto de externalización de riesgos y responsabilidades a sus filiales, proveedores, proveedoras contratistas o subcontratistas. De esta manera la responsabilidad no se limita a quien pueda cometer una violación dentro de la cadena de valor, sino que la responsabilidad sube a la matriz de la empresa transnacional que se beneficie de su operación. Dado que la corporación transnacional impulsa la concepción y el desarrollo del producto apropiándose de la mayoría de la parte de las ganancias netas, netas e ingresos globales. Esta debe asumir la responsabilidad por vulneraciones cometidas por cualquiera de las entidades de cadena de valor global. Es importante resaltar que las matrices dominan conducen la cadena de valor controlan la propiedad intelectual y otras propiedades intangibles. Diseñan el marketing establecen los procedimientos y se quedan usualmente con la mayoría de los. beneficios. Estos conceptos de cadena de valor y de responsabilidad solidaria, permiten que las víctimas de mejor manera puedan solicitar una reparación integral a cualquiera de los actores involucrados incluyendo la matriz, sin que se pueda escudar en personas diferentes de filiales o proveedores. Además de que la responsabilidad solidaria debe ser incluida en el artículo 8.º la definición en incluir con una buena definición de cadena de valor, la mejor opción sería la propuesta por Palestina en la 8.ª sesión, que elimina la referencia a los sistemas jurídicos nacionales y describe de mejor manera las relaciones empresariales que no son necesariamente contractuales. Esta enmienda debería incluir también el capital financiero que financia a la empresa transnacional. Todo esto evita que la fragmentación de la cadena de valor de una empresa de carácter transnacional se convierta en una herramienta de impunidad. También permite ampliar el foro de competencia y la ley aplicable, de tal manera que las víctimas puedan escoger en qué país les conviene demandar con más garantías. Ya que usualmente puede ser mejor demandar en la sede de la matriz que en el lugar donde ocurrieron los hechos. Estos principios son disuasorios para que las empresas de carácter transnacional tomen medidas serias y eficaces para prevenir, vigilar y corregir prácticas que propicien violaciones de derechos humanos. Frente a los desafíos éticos que plantea la globalización corporativa se vuelve imperativo garantizar la universalidad de los derechos humanos a escala global. Esto requiere un marco normativo sólido y un tratado vinculante que obligue a las empresas a rendir cuentas. Gracias señor presidente.


Presidente-Relator [2:52:01]:

Muchas gracias cedo la palabra a International Trade Union Confederation. Microphone, please.


ITUC · global labor movement [2:52:19]:

I speak on behalf of the global labor movement. We welcome the additional reference to financial institutions, investment funds, and transnational corporates group and artificial intelligence at the end of the article, as well as the deletion of the reference to national law. Chair, these changes represent significant improvement to the text. Although not raising the commentary to this specific provision, we know that the commentary to Proposal 20 asks whether the concept of value change is adequately defined. Since the definition of business relationship is the only place in the text that includes a reference to value change, we see merit in explaining this term and the term global. supply goal global value change at the end of article 1.6, even though the concept may already be encapsulated in the existing definition. If the definition is needed, we could suggest something along this following line. Global value change means the full range of upstream and downstream business activities of a transnational character of a business enterprise business relationship. Chair, it might sounds very circular, but this formulation incorporates existing definitions. However, chair, so you, we would like to ask the legal experts whether the current drafting and definition adequately defines or explain the concept of global value change for the purpose of the adequate implementation of the LBI. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:53:53]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [2:54:13]:

Thank you Chair I speak on behalf of IUI and Yoisebi. Chair we cannot support this proposal. Defining business relationships as any relationship remains completely unworkable as it is limitless, vague and overly broad. More concretely, it wrongly presumes that a business has visibility and leverage, and leverage over every other business to which it might be connected, no matter how far down a value chain. Just as the previous proposal, the redrafting adds new categories such as financial financial institutions, investment funds, and artificial intelligence, which further blur this definition with that of business activities. And here again, what is meant exactly by other activity or electronic or digital means. The return retention of throughout their value chains and the deletion of as provided under the domestic law of the state, remove an important anchor in national law, and extend due diligence duties and liability to entities with which companies have no contractual relationship and into whose operations they have no insight or control, with important negative unintended consequences, especially for MSMEs. This is not consistent with the UNGPs and under which business relationships are those directly linked to a company's operation products or services and is simply unrealistic to implement. Chair businesses need clear, precise, and workable definitions to ethics effectively carry out their human rights due diligence in line with the UNGPs. Otherwise, this instrument risks undermining rather than strengthening meaningful due diligence in practice. We would therefore recommend in state Business relationship means a relationship of a business enterprise with its business partners and other non state hostile entities directly linked to its business operations, products or services, by contractual arrangement and to which it has visibility and leverage. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:56:07]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Cidse.


CIDSE · CIDSE and its member organizations [2:56:16]:

Mr. Chair, rapporteur, I am speaking on behalf of CITCE and its member organizations, Manus Unidas, Miserior, CCFD, Terres Solidaires, Brülich Delen, Trocare, Fast en Action and CAFOT. We welcome several important elements of this proposal on business relationships in Article 1.6. And in particular, we welcome the explicit inclusion of affiliates, subsidiaries, suppliers, joint ventures, financial,, financial institutions, investment funds, and transnational corporate groups, as well as the reference to value chains. These elements reflect the complexity of contemporary corporate structure structures. And we encourage encourage ensuring that the provision is sufficiently clear and comprehensive to capture the entire value chain and the range of relationships through which business business activities. are conducted, including the investments and other services by financial institutions. This is essential to avoid legal uncertainty, and importantly, to prevent corporate structures from being used to evade accountability. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:57:29]:

Muchas gracias Este fue el último orador de la lista. Agradezco a todos por sus contribuciones tanto a estados como a representantes de sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. antes he tomado por supuesto debida nota. Perdón Arabia Saudita desea intervenir adelante por favor.


Saudi Arabia [2:58:00]:

سيدي الرئيس اسمح لي القيام بمداخلة المملكة على الفقرة 1.6 قبل الانتقال للمقترح التالي. السيد الرئيس تلاحظ المملكة أن تعريف علاقة الأعمال إزداد اتساعا، إذ بات يشمل أي علاقة في جميع مراحل سلاسل القيمة، بما فيها المؤسسات المالية، وصناديق الاستثمار، ويشير إلى الكيانات الحكومية وغير الحكومية، مع حذف الإحالة إلى القانون الداخلي بما قد يرتب آثارا قانونية على روابط بعيدة أو عرضية. وترى المملكة أن المعيار الحاكم ينبغي أن يكون السيطرة الفعلية أو التأثير المباشر واضحا. والمعتبر في الأنشطة ذات الصلة، لا الشكل القانوني للعلاقة، بما يشمل السيطرة التي تمارس من خلال الملكية في الشركات التابعة والمشاريع المشتركة. كما ينبغي أن لا يفهم التعريف على أنه يمد التزامات مؤسسة الأعمال أو مسؤولياتها ملكياتها إلى الأفراد لمجرد ملكيتهم لها أو عملهم لديها، علما بأن الأنشطة التي يمارسها الأشخاص الطبيعيون تظل مشمولة بالمادة 14 وعليه تقترح المملكة أن يقصد بعلاقة الأعمال، أي علاقة تعاقدية أو تشغيلية أو قائمة على الملكية، بين أشخاص اعتباريين لممارسة أنشطة تجارية، تمارس من خلالها مؤسسة الأعمال سيطرة فعلية على سلوك الطرف الآخر، فيما يتصل بالأنشطة ذات الصلة، أو يكون بمقدورها أن تمارس عليه تأثيرا مباشرا ومعتبرا وفقا للقانون الداخلي للدولة، مع أن يتم النص على ان الاستثمار الذي لا يمنح سيطرة ولا تأثيرا مباشرا، ومعتبرا في الأنشطة ذات الصلة، وممارسة الدولة لحقوقها بصفتها مالكا أو جهة تنظيمية لا يشكلان بذاتهما علاقة أعمال، إضافة إلى أن يتم النص على عدم نسب إلتزامات مؤسسة الأعمال أو مسؤولياتها إلى الأفراد، لمجرد صلتهم بها، وشكرا سيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [3:00:50]:

Muchas gracias a

Arabia Saudita por su. por su intervención. Bien hemos concluido el intercambio sobre el artículo 1.6 pasaremos ahora a la 15.ª 15.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de organización de integración regional del artículo 1.7. Que plantea una cuestión de ubicación más que de contenido. Esta disposición define a estas organizaciones como aquellas constituidas por estados soberanos de una región determinada. a las que sus estados miembros han transferido competencias en las materias regidas por el instrumento. Y dispone que las referencias a los estados partes se aplicarán a ellas dentro de los límites de dicha competencia. Las organizaciones de integración regional sólo se mencionan en las disposiciones institucionales y finales del instrumento. Por lo que en las consultas temáticas interseccionales se apoyó trasladar esta definición. Asimismo al examinar el artículo 19, algunas delegaciones formularon preguntas sobre esta figura y se sugirió que lo relativo a su derecho de voto se aborde en el. artículo 15. Como modelo se tuvo presente el artículo 44 de la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, que regula estas organizaciones e en una disposición propia. Por ello la presidencia relatoria sugiere eliminar el artículo 1.7 del artículo sobre definiciones y reubicar su contenido con ajustes menores en el artículo 19 sobre firma, ratificación, aceptación, aprobación y adhesión o en un artículo independiente a continuación de la disposición relativa al consentimiento en obligarse. Su contenido sustantivo se preservaría en la nueva ubicación y los estados, podrán considerar asimismo la pertinencia de referirse al derecho de voto de estas organizaciones en la Conferencia de los Estados Partes. Con esta breve introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 15 relativa al artículo 1.15. 1.7. عربيا السعودية. Saudita.


Saudi Arabia [3:04:31]:

نظرا لارتباطها. ترحب المملكة السيد الرئيس بمقترحات الرئيس المقرر بنقل الفقرة 17 وحذف الفقرة 1.10 وتبسيط الفقرة 1.8 بما يتسق مع دعوتها الى الاقتصار على التعريفات التي تقتضيها ضرورة واضحة. وفيما يتعلق بمفهوم العناية الواجبة تؤكد المملكة ضرورة أن يظل قائما على المخاطر ومراعيا للسياق والظروف الوطنية، ومقتصرا على اتخاذ تدابير معقولة ومتناسبة ضمن حدود السيطرة الفعلية أو النفوذ الذي يمكن ممارسته بصورة معقولة. وعليه تقترح المملكة أن يضاف إلى الفقرة 1.8 نصا يقضي بأن هذه العمليات تقوم على المخاطر وتنطوي على تدابير معقولة ومتناسبة، مع مراعاة السيطرة الفعلية لمؤسسة الأعمال على الأنشطة وعلاقات الأعمال ذات الصلة، أو النفوذ الذي يمكنها من ممارسة أعمالها بصورة معقولة، والسياق والظروف الوطنية التي تعمل بها، على أن يراعى هذا المعيار ذاته عند نقل عناصر التعريف إلى المادة السادسة كما ترحب المملكة السيد الرئيس بالإبقاء على المرونة الممنوحة للدول في الفقرة الجديدة 6.7. وشكرا للسيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [3:06:26]:

Muchas gracias a Arabia Saudita. Cuba tiene la palabra


Cuba [3:06:36]:

Muchas gracias señor presidente. Cuba apoya la propuesta del presidente de mover la discusión y posible definición del término organizaciones regionales de integración al artículo 19. Al mismo tiempo, reiteramos en este punto nuestras dudas sobre el valor añadido de permitir que las organizaciones regionales de integración sean parte en este instrumento jurídicamente vinculante y, por lo tanto, tengan derecho a voto. Consideramos que no está claro de qué manera estas organizaciones podrían aplicar las disposiciones propuestas en el tratado ni cómo se articularían sus obligaciones con las de los estados miembros. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [3:07:20]:

Muchas gracias a Cuba. Algún otro Estado desea intervenir?

Bien si no es el caso entonces

Pasamos a las intervenciones de los representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores. sectores relevantes. En primer lugar cedo la palabra a International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC · global labor movement [3:07:57]:

You, chair. I speak on behalf of the global labor movement. I will be very brief. We can support the deletion of Article 1.7 on the understanding that it will be relocated to Article 19. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [3:08:10]:

Muchas gracias.

Setim tiene la palabra.


CETIM [3:08:21]:

Gracias señor presidente. Yo soy Andresa y hablo en nombre de CETIM, miembro de la campaña global. También voy a ser muy breve. Nosotras como nuestra compañera de los sindicatos también apoyamos la exclusión de este artículo acá en definiciones y moverlo al artículo 19 bien como apoyamos también la exclusión del one point ten que nos volveremos a referir cuando sea el caso. Gracias. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [3:08:50]:

La Organización Internacional de Empleadores tiene la palabra.


IOE · IOE and USCIB [3:09:05]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB and I will also be brief. We welcome this proposal and we can support relocating this provision to article 19 as we had suggested. which helps streamline the definitions. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [3:09:27]:

Muchas gracias. orador de la lista. Muchas gracias a todos quienes han contribuido a este intercambio. A continuación, abordaremos la 16.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos del artículo 1.8. El objetivo de esta reformulación es trasladar la mayor parte de su contenido al artículo seis sobre prevención. Con algunas modificaciones que fortalezcan su alineamiento. con las normas internacionales sobre conducta empresarial responsable y con los desarrollos normativos jurisprudenciales y programáticos en diferentes países y regiones. La definición contenida en el proyecto actualizado de instrumento jurídicamente vinculante describe los procesos mediante los cuales las empresas identifican previenen mitigan y rinden cuentas de sus impactos adversos. E incluye además sus componentes operativos. A saber La identificación y evaluación de impactos la adopción de medidas el seguimiento de su eficacia y la comunicación a las partes interesadas. Asimismo, esta propuesta de reformulación guarda coherencia con la 4.ª propuesta de reformulación presentada en la 11.ª sesión relativa a los artículos 6.1 y 6.2, que buscó precisar la naturaleza y el alcance de la debida diligencia referida en el artículo 6.2, apartado c. Sin embargo el término sólo se utiliza en el artículo seis en particular en los párrafos 6.2 y 6.4. Por lo que también se llegó a plantear su reubicación bajo dicho artículo. Por su parte, los desarrollos normativos nacionales más recientes sobre cadenas de suministro, con Configuran la debida diligencia como un conjunto de disposiciones sustantivas y no como una definición. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales varias delegaciones y organizaciones, preferiron mantener el concepto en este artículo como un concepto transversal, mientras que otras sugeriron considerar el traslado de su contenido artículo 6,1 versión ajustada o simplificada. Varias delegaciones subrayaron la necesidad de alinearla con los principios rectores, en particular con los principios 15 y del 17 al 21 y de mantener la referencia a la mitigación por ser la prevención, y la mitigación elementos complementarios. Con estos antecedentes, la presidencia relatoria sugiere optar por una solución intermedia, conservando únicamente la primera frase de la definición del artículo 1.8, ajustándola de manera que abarque todo tipo de debida diligencia, Incluida la de los estados, definida como los procesos para identificar prevenir mitigar y rendir cuentas de los impactos adversos en los derechos. humanos. Así, se mantiene una referencia amplia y transversal en el artículo de definiciones, mientras que los demás elementos relativos, específicamente a la debida diligencia de las empresas se integrarían en el artículo seis con algunas modificaciones en una etapa posterior. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 16. Apuesta 16 de reformulación del artículo 1.8. la Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [3:14:27]:

Thank you. Moving the operative elements of the definition of human rights diligence to Article six could make sense, provided that those elements are effectively retained there. How However, we would appreciate clarification as to whether mitigation is intended to also encompass bringing actual adverse impacts to an end and providing full for or cooperating in the remediation as appropriate to the enterprise's involvement. While this draft lbi appears to use the term in this broader sense, this is not expressly explained. It might therefore be worthwhile considering an explicit reference in Article six to identifying and addressing actual and potential adverse impacts with a clarification that addressing encompasses prevention, mitigation, cessation, and where appropriate remediation. It would also be useful to clarify the relationship between the due diligence obligations under Article six and the liability provisions in Article eight, including liability for harm, resulting from a breach of those obligations while distinguishing civil liability from administrative enforcement of non compliance.


Presidente-Relator [3:15:55]:

Thanks.

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [3:16:13]:

Mr.

Chair i promise i'll be quick. We are supportive of moving the operative elements of human rights due diligence to article six but we do note. that in light of the operative elements being moved to article six, we also anticipate that article six will be closely aligned with the UNGPs and the OECD guideline. Guidelines and more specifically a risk based and ongoing process meaningful stakeholder engagement and addressing actual and potential impacts. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [3:16:50]:

Muchas gracias

A

Islandia. El estado de Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [3:17:05]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can accept moving the operative content of 1.8 to article six. Consolidating the two avoids redundancy and makes human rights due diligence. directly enforceable under Article six. But the move must not weaken the obligation. And the sentence that remains in 1.8 is too weak. It does not mention value chains. It does not present due diligence as an obligation, and it falls short of the guiding principles and of several national due diligence laws. We therefore accept the move only if Article six sets out due diligence as a binding preventive obligation on transnational corporations and other enterprises of a transnational character, covering their value chains, as an end as a legally enforceable standard of conduct, which is particularly crucial in high risk sectors. The sentence that remains in 1.8 should also drop the words adverse human rights impacts in line with our position on 1.2. and refer instead to identifying, preventing, and remedying abuses and violations and preventing and mitigating risks. Due diligence must be a standard of conduct, not a safe harbor. Carrying out due diligence cannot shield an enterprise from liability where it nonetheless causes or contributes to an abuse or violation. And procedural compliance should not be seen as enough. We reiterate that it is no substitute for the other mechanisms of prevention liability and jurisdiction that the treaty must also provide. I thank you.


Presidente-Relator [3:18:48]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. Estamos por concluir el tiempo de asignado de esta mañana por lo cual e continuaremos e esta tarde. Tengo en la en la lista a al Reino Unido a Uruguay. y quedará abierto también para si otro estado desea intervenir. Bien agradezco a todos su participación en la reunión de esta. mañana se levanta la sesión y nos veremos nuevamente a 15:00. Gracias a todos.