8th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations
Human Rights Council
Date: 15 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/es/asset/k1v/k1v9he0bb5?lang=en
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.

---

OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [0:05]:

Good afternoon, distinguished delegates, distinguished participants. I hereby call to order the eighth meeting of the 12th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. We shall pick up where we left off this morning with the list of speakers representing civil society organizations and other key stakeholders. And I begin this afternoon by giving the floor to the representative of International Federation for Human Rights.


FIDH [0:50]:

We believe that the suggested reformulation under option one is more adequate than option two. because option two would leave out human rights recognized under domestic law. However, the domestic law the text refers to should be in line with or more protective of human rights than international human rights law. A new reformulation that captures this qualification could read as follows: This legally binding instrument shall cover all human rights binding on State parties of this legally binding instrument as reflected in treaties to which those States are parties, in customary international law, in the general principles of law, and in the domestic law of those State parties that is in line with or more protective than international human rights law. We also fully agree with the recommendation from Costa Rica to expressly include state obligations emerging from international jurisprudence, including the advisory opinions of international courts. Additionally, we would like to insist on the importance of expressly adding a reference to at least certain UN declarations and resolutions which are particularly relevant in the context of business and human rights. such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Declaration of Human Rights Defenders, and UN resolutions on the right to a healthy environment, or at least avoiding a definition of the material scope that could be read as excluding them. A potential way of including these instruments is by way of a broad reference to applicable internationally agreed human rights declarations and other instruments, mirroring a similar phrase in Preambular paragraph 3. Alternatively, these references could be considered in the context of Article 6 when defining the rights business enterprises are required to respect in the context of their due diligence duties, along the lines proposed by legal expert Umberto Cantu this morning. As far as the right to a healthy environment is concerned, we agree with suggestions made by colleagues yesterday that a way of making sure this right is included might be by adding including the right to a healthy environment at the end of the text of article 1.2. However, the express inclusion of international jurisprudence, including advisory opinions of international courts, as suggested by Costa Rica, again, would also ensure that the right to a healthy environment form parts of the material scope of the LBI through the relevant advisory opinions of both the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, at least in relation to state parties that belong to that region. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [3:30]:

Thank you very much. The next speaker is the International Trade Union Confederation, ITUC.


ITUC · global labour movement [3:39]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. Chair, while we appreciate the sensitivities around the material scope of the LBI, we will need comfort as to the source of international human rights law binding on states parties as articulated in the redraft. While the imperfect term "international recognized human rights" as pronounced in the UN GPS explicitly recognize the International Bill of Rights coupled with the principles concerning fundamental rights in the 10 ILO Convention as set out in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, we would ask for confirmation from the legal expert as to whether the ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work are covered by the two new options. we have previously highlighted the importance of reordering Article 3.3 to cover more clearly the internationally recognized human rights applicable to States by virtue of the ratification and those to which they are otherwise bound. While fundamental labour rights are indeed human rights in international law, absolute clarity is required for us to take a position on the revised article. Therefore, through you, Chair, we would like to ask the legal expert of the ILO, sorry, the legal expert if the ILO fundamental principles and rights at work are covered by this article. Depending on the response, we will of course be happy to provide alternative wording that encapsules fundamental labour rights within the material scope of the LBI. I thank you, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [5:22]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor next to SHUMEK.


SHUMEK [5:31]:

Thank you, Chair. My name is Maria Natalia Etxegoyenberri, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Association for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, SHUMEK, as well as the Global Health Citizens Movement, both of these organisations being members of the global campaign. We'd like to voice our support for the proposals related to Article 3.3, and in particular, we favour option one. which expands the scope to cover human rights enshrined in customary international law, general principles of law and in domestic law. We would also suggest that we include the following wording, which is in line with international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international environmental law. We think that expanding the definitions within this option to include those concepts will be in line with proposals made by Costa Rica, Brazil, and the European Union, and would go in line with the new wording suggested by Cuba and Uruguay to ensure coherence and consistency throughout the draft. We agree with the Costa Rican delegation that there's a need to make express reference to advisory opinions and jurisprudence because they have contributed to defining the scope and reach of international law. as well as the specific inclusion of international environmental law. That wording needs to appear there, in our view. We also agree with Uruguay that we need to preserve the highest possible levels of protection, given the legal commitments of States. We also agree with the delegation of Palestine that reference be made to norms pertaining to indigenous peoples, including the relevant declarations and the declarations on peasants' rights and the declarations on environmental rights. Reference also needs to be made to national legislation to the extent that national legislation extends greater protection to human rights. We also agree with the inclusion of references to ILO norms and standards, as was highlighted by the European Union delegation. This proposal is consistent with the way in which regional systems currently function, for example, the Inter-American system, in which the Inter-American corpus juris establishes a set of norms that have their origins in conventions and treaties and which are then applied uniformly to all members and states party to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. I would also like to reference conventional oversight as an instrument which needs to be exercised by all States parties, ensuring that the compatibility exists between their domestic law and the provisions of the Inter-American conventional human rights, as well as with the conventional block, which covers the treaties, advisory opinions and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court. As far as the Inter-American system is concerned, this Conventional oversight is an obligation, an obligation borne by all overseeing bodies, including governments, courts, etc., to on an obligatory basis ensure the domestic law is in line with international obligations of the given state, including the conventional block, i.e. other treaties, advisory opinions, and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court. We agree that the adoption and ratification of various conventions on human rights by States Parties has contributed to making it clear what States Parties' obligations are when it comes to respecting, protecting, guaranteeing and rendering effective human rights. Finally, we are of the view that any future treaty should be interpreted in the broadest possible light of international law, guaranteeing thus a holistic, consistent, coherent and progressive approach to the protection of human rights for peoples, communities and societies. As far as the global campaign is concerned, we believe the broadest possible reference to all international human rights instruments in a future treaty, a future LBI, is not merely a technical point, it's also an ethical point, because I think it responds to the question as to how many lives we are willing to protect and ensure can flourish or otherwise die. Thank you very much.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [9:22]:

Thank you very much, says the Chair. I give the floor to Institute for Policy Studies.


Institute for Policy Studies [9:26]:

My name is Jose Trevino, speaking on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies and DEFER Climate, both members of the Global Campaign. We welcome the Chair's proposals on Article 3.3, particularly option 1, which broadens the scope to encompass human rights enshrined not only in treaties, but also in customary international law, general principles of law, and the domestic law of states. one more protective of human rights. However, we call for the deletion of the phrase "to which those States are parties", as it would create a variable scope of protection depending on which treaties States have ratified. It is not reasonable for some affected people to enjoy certain rights under this treaty, while others are denied those same rights simply because their State has not ratified a particular instrument. Moreover, an important amount of human rights are already considered to be part of the jus cogens, as Brazil mentioned yesterday, and their fulfilment has to be guaranteed, not depending on ratification of treaties. We therefore propose merging the two options, referring instead as reflected in international human rights law, in customary international law, in the general principles of law and domestic law of those state parties. It is fundamental that the future treaty can align with other treaties adopted by countries and with domestic legal frameworks, following the progressive and evolutive character of human rights. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [10:54]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor next to Sidse.


Parliament of the Xinca people of Guatemala [11:02]:

Much obliged to you, Chair, rapporteur. I take the floor on behalf of the Parliament of the Xinca people of Guatemala, as well as on behalf of CIDCE and its members. My name is Hushi Hurak. I'm from the Xinca people, which means the people that guide, and I'm here representing my people who have been engaged in a protracted fight claiming their individual and collective rights as an indigenous people. We are of the view that there are important elements of convergence in the two options that have been submitted to us for consideration. by the chair rapporteur relating to Article 3.3, scope of application of human rights. We are of the view that option 1 is particularly useful, given that it provides a broader base by referring specifically to treaties, international customary law, general principles of law and domestic law. That said, we do still harbour some outstanding concerns, namely that neither of the two options put forward to us for consideration explicitly recognises the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is something that is a key element duly recognised in major declarations such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. Given that, we urge States to maintain the broadest possible wording or formulation when addressing human rights and fundamental freedoms, in other words, to keep the language "internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms" as well as subsequent to that language making specific reference to what these rights are or where they might stem from. If we were to adopt that still broader approach to option 1, this would guarantee consistency with article 1.3 and the proposal thereunder and would strengthen the capacity of any future treaty to address environmental aspects of human rights violations, particularly those for which businesses and companies are responsible. Thank you very much, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [13:06]:

Gracias.

Thank you very much. So that brings us to the end of our deliberations on proposals 9 to 22 of the chair rapporteur, which cover articles 1 to 3 inclusive of the updated draft of the legally binding instrument. That means that we had a chance to review and discuss all of the proposals that have been submitted to the open-ended intergovernmental working group's consideration at this session. I would like to thank all States, as well as representatives of civil society, and other key stakeholders for your invaluable contribution to our deliberations, all of which have been taken due note of and will be duly factored in to the next steps in the process. I believe that we have achieved the goal of fostering a substantive exchange on the fruit of the intercessional thematic consultations on these three articles as well as the discussions on identification of possible areas of convergence. I think we more than fulfilled that brief. So that brings us to the section entitled General Visional Oversight of the Text, which is the space for dialogue on other aspects of the text and the future course of action and the future path that we shall follow to continue our work on the draft. I intend to split this particular section of our work into two parts. In the first part, I would like to give delegations who wish to an opportunity to submit new and timely comments and proposals on other sections or articles of the text, including on the preamble. as well as on the redrafting proposals submitted by the chair-rapporteur on articles 4 to 11 inclusive, including those proposals that were submitted at this session or at the previous session. I would ask us to refrain from making comments on proposals prior to either this or the previous session of the intergovernmental working group. Then we will turn to the second part of the deliberations in this section, which is a general overview of the text and the future course of action, our future path forward. I would ask, in the interest of good time management, to ask those delegations who wish to take the floor to do so in the understanding that already expressed opinions have already been duly recorded in the minutes of previous sessions and consultations, and have also been included in the compilation document, which is now running at close to 100 pages. In that understanding, I am not to repeat what has been said previously. The floor is open to any delegation that wishes to take the floor in this first part.


State of Palestine [16:32]:

Thank you, Chair. We do have additional comments on parts of the treaty that were not covered in this discussion, on articles 12 to 24 and 1 to 3. Our comprehensive comments are included in the compilation that we sent. Here we would like to summarize some of our main priorities for the rest of the text, beginning with the preamble. The preamble is the interpretive key to the whole instrument, and it must match the operative text. We have three priorities. First, the treaty must protect those most affected. That includes people exercising their right to self-determination, including permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. At the eighth session, we proposed three preamble paragraphs on this, which drew support and no objection. We request that they be inserted in the new draft, with references to articles 1 and 55 of the Charter, the Friendly Relations Declaration, common article 1 of the two covenants, and General Assembly resolution 1514. The preamble should also clearly refer to indigenous peoples and their right to free, prior, and informed consent. peasants and other people working in rural areas, workers, women and defenders of human rights and the environment. It must recognize the right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment and address corporate accountability for the climate crisis. Second, the preamble should affirm the primacy of human rights obligations over conflicting provisions in the trade, investment, finance, taxation, environmental and climate change, development cooperation and security agreements, trade and investment agreements, and investor-state dispute settlement in particular, must not override or limit states' ability to protect human rights. This premise should also be given operative effect in Article 14. Third, the preamble should reinstate the references to international humanitarian law and to rights to non-discrimination, participation and inclusion. Effective access to justice and remedy must be understood comprehensively, particularly where violations of human rights law and humanitarian law arise together. Under Articles 4 to 11, we have the following priorities. Under Article 4, victims and affected communities should be able to ask states and the committee for precautionary measures against arbitration proceedings and awards that risk human rights or environmental harm. This is only fair given that investors can use arbitration to challenge measures taken to protect rights, while the people harmed have no comparable avenue. Under Article 6, States should adopt such measures on their own initiative or on the request and ensure that human rights and environmental impact assessments are conducted and published before trade and investment agreements, investor contracts and public-private partnerships are concluded and reassessed regularly. Article 6 must also establish direct binding obligations on transnational corporations and other enterprises of transnational character. Where due diligence appears in Article 6, it must cover value chains and expressly include environmental due diligence. In conflict-affected areas, including situations of occupation, the duty must be enhanced. Article 8 should provide for civil, administrative and criminal liability. for abuses and violations of international human rights, humanitarian and criminal law. That liability should be joint and several across corporate group and the value chain, and presumed across parent companies, subsidiaries, suppliers and contractors. So a parent company cannot escape responsibility by pointing to a legally separate subsidiary or arms-length supplier. Carrying out due diligence must not exempt enterprise from liability. Given the serious risk of gross abuses in conflict-affected areas, Article 8 should also be reviewed to ensure deterrence and accountability where states and corporations involved in business activities in such areas, including under occupation, cause or contribute to serious violations of international law, including international criminal law and international humanitarian law. Article 9 should then give victims the broadest jurisdiction possible, so that they can seek justice where corporations are domiciled, operate or hold assets. Extraterritorial jurisdiction limits on forum non covenants, a forum that necessitates and the reintroduction of the universal jurisdiction for abuses and violations amounting to international crimes. More generally, we support obligation rather than responsibility throughout the text, and violation instead of abuse, or at the very minimum, abuses and violations. Finally, Mr. Chair, public policy and decision-making, including the negotiation, must be protected from interference of commercial and other vested interests. consistent with Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and with Article 16.6. Thank you, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [22:40]:

Thank you very much, the State of Palestine. I give the floor to Japan.


Japan [22:52]:

Um, apologies for going back to an earlier session this week, uh, but as we did not receive the instructions from the capital at that time, allow me to add a comment on Article 12.5, which we discussed in the first day of the negotiation. We recognize that newly suggested article 12.5 and Chair Rapporteur's proposal 1 is a reintroduction of 12.10 which existed in the third draft of LBI. As stated in the intersessional thematic consultation earlier, we would like to reiterate our position. Regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil matters, there is the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, created by Hague Conference on Private International Law. Including provisions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in this draft may impair consistency with existing international treaties. Therefore, Article 12.5, which is a reintroduction of Article 12.10, would be inappropriate. Thank you for allowing me to add a comment.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [24:13]:

Thank you very much. Any other state wishing to take the floor? If not, representatives of civil society and other stakeholders who wish to take the floor. I beg your pardon. Before China has asked for the floor, please go ahead. Thank you.


China [24:41]:

Thank you, Chair.

We would like to make some simple comments. That is, in last year's UN Human Rights Council, during the session, China, on behalf of the global South countries, put forward the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights. The resolution was adopted by consensus. and the resolution, the development to the contribution to the enjoyment of all human rights, the role of development. Therefore, China would like to propose in the preamble part, in paragraph three, in the preamble, to add about the contents regarding the declaration on the right to development. in order to balance the protection and the development, the balance between the two sides. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [25:44]:

Thank you very much, China. Any other requests for the floor? In that case, we'll open the floor to representatives of civil society and other relevant actors. who wish to take the floor. I give the floor to Setim.


CETIM [26:33]:

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to refer to articles, the core articles of the treaty, which, as we call them, which were negotiated a couple of years ago. We are grateful for the statement by Palestine, which is very much in line with our historic demands as civil society and as global campaign. I speak on behalf of Setim and as member of the global campaign. First, generally speaking, we want to recall once more that this text is a human rights instrument and that we can restores the nature of human rights, turning it into a genuine human rights instrument, which was lost in the updated revised draft. Therefore, it is very important that the new draft that will be presented recovers that nature and provides for the primacy of human rights in the preamble and in articles 4, 6 and 14. Historically, we have always defended what is established specific obligations for corporations, article 6 and 7. Why? Because just to say that states should regulate corporations that respect human rights, but without saying what conduct should be shown to respect human rights leaves things very open. Therefore, articles 6 and 7, above all, which speak of prevention, should determine specifically what type of conduct corporations should abide by in order to respect those human rights, and, above all, link it as an obligation of corporations, that respect for human rights, which already exists in international human rights law. An example of that is human rights due diligence conduct, but it cannot be the only prevention measure provided for in the instrument, because we have other kinds of measures that are more or less important than due diligence itself. For example, access to information, contract transparency, FPIC the right to say no for communities and also for the state, the need to link that consent and precautionary measures, as Palestine said also. And on Article 8, liability, responsibility, that's the very core of the whole treaty. And that responsibility, which today in the updated revised draft is marked as a criminal conduct, could regress to a responsibility through human rights violations committed by such corporations and which is based on the joint responsibility in the value chain and it shouldn't be limited to the exercise or not of due diligence. which is not a de fin obligation but a midway obligation. Speaking of the importance of excluding the thesis of the non-conveniens forum in the jurisdiction article, which is currently a big obstacle to access to justice for victims, affected persons and communities, expanding the notion of the domicile of corporations to expand the possibility of jurisdiction, and providing for forum necessitatis. Equally important is international cooperation, which the document can truly provide for. Also, we need an enforcement mechanism to validate decisions and rulings from other jurisdictions, because we know that the process of fragmentation of assets is very much exploited by corporations to evade justice. We hope that the document can therefore restore that. key aspect, this nucleus, that can properly guarantee that we bridge the gaps that we have now when it comes to accountability. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [30:47]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the Society for Threatened People.


German Treaty Alliance [30:58]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the German Treaty Alliance, including Global Policy Forum Europe, Misereor, FIAN Germany, the Society for Threatened Peoples, and Women Engage for a Common Future. Chair, distinguished delegates, colleagues, for decades, our organizations have supported individuals and communities affected by exploitation, evictions, violence, and other human rights abuses linked to business activities. Too often, those affected face major barriers to access to justice and effective remedy, while companies are able to evade accountability. And this is why we need an effective, legally binding instrument on business and human rights. When we look at the text as a whole, and also towards the development of a new text in 2027, We would like to reiterate five key priorities. First, access to justice and effective remedy must be the clear central rationale of the treaty. This requires reducing legal hurdles and especially a reversal of the burden of proof as in Article 7.4. It requires recognizing gender-specific and vulnerability-based provisions. Second, we need clear and robust human rights due diligence standards throughout the value chain, while also providing additional preventative measures, including respect for indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent in article 6.4. Simultaneously, like several countries suggested in article 8.6, compliance with due diligence requirements must not exempt business enterprises from legal liability. Third, we recognize human rights to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment must be substantively reflected in the instrument. Fourth, financial institutions and insurances must be included within the scope of the treaty and its due diligence requirements. Fifth, the treaty should ensure that human rights obligations prevail, especially in relation to trade and investment agreements and their implications, including with investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. It must also provide effective protection for human rights defenders, trade unionists and whistleblowers. We are convinced that the process has truly benefited from the additional resources provided through decision 56/116. We call on all States and the Human Rights Council to support the renewal of the decision and provide the resources needed until the successful completion of these negotiations. When developing a new draft, we trust that the process will be transparent, inclusive, and grounded in the experiences of affected peoples and communities. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [33:50]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to

International Service for Human Rights.


ISHR [33:58]:

Thank you, Chair. This statement is made on behalf of ISHR and Franciscans International. We would like to highlight the urgent need for the LVDA to provide comprehensive and enforceable protection for human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, those facing colonization, people working in rural areas, and other affected communities who are at the front line of resisting corporate abuses, who are witnessing systematic repression. This won't be a mere formality. This will be effectively responding to the reality in many regions. As mentioned in our joint statement on Article 16.3, we support Palestine's suggestions to include the right to self-determination in the preamble. We underscore that the violation of the right to self-determination, including permanent sovereignty over natural resources, is often central to business exploitation and complicity. Correspondingly, we support inclusion of language of the environment in the preamble, including the resolutions of recognition of the right to clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. We see also that despite numerous efforts of interventions by the states during the international sessions and in this 12th session on including references to human right defenders in the text, we see that the draft and the proposals by the chair does not include these references. It is important that the preamble includes a reference to the UN Declaration of Human Right Defenders, the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of People Working in Rural Areas. This room is full of human rights defenders from various regions. Through their interventions these days, they have shared not only the impacts of their communities are facing, but also cases of criminalization, harassment, and abuses that they are suffering for simply exercising the right to defend rights. We have seen that what it is not explicitly referenced is usually not recognized and not included, is usually ignored. In 2025, the Business and Human Rights Center documented nearly 800 attacks. in 80 countries on human rights defenders raising concerns about businesses. This is more than two attacks on average every day. In the last 12 years, which is how long these negotiations have lasted, we have seen thousands of cases of attacks against human rights defenders. As we move forward with the development of the fourth draft, we believe more than ever that binding rules and better regulations of business enterprises, especially of transnational corporations, are not only fundamental, but one of the strongest, if not the only, options to guarantee the respect of human rights by businesses, including the rights of human rights defenders and their communities. We also believe that including human rights defenders would also mean guaranteeing the safe and meaningful participation. So we hope that in the methodology and process towards the 13th session, we can see that reflected. We have constantly calling also of measures that could guarantee the participation of defenders and communities in intercessional meetings to, for example, hybrid modalities and other measures. We hope that both the methodology and the text of the legal binding instrument can include express references to human rights defenders. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [37:06]:

Thank you very much. That was the last speaker on my list. I'm grateful for your contributions, proposals, comments. of which due note has been taken, we can now move to the second part of this segment. I'd like to begin with a brief general description of how far we've come in this process as a basis for dialogue on the way forward. As you know, since the start of this process, this working group has examined successively an elements document used for discussions that took place in October 2017, the zero draft of the LBI presented in July 2018, the revised project rev 1, July 2019, second draft of August 2020, and the third revised draft rev 3 August 2021. Based on that passage, the updated draft LBI was presented subsequently, which served as a basis for our negotiations since the ninth session. At the ninth session, held in October 2023, The working group conducted direct negotiations on the preamble and articles 1 to 3 of the updated draft at the 10th session on 24 December, on articles 4 to 11, and at the 11th session on 25 October, on articles 12 to 24. In parallel, pursuant to decision 56/116, the three intersessional thematic consultations in 2025 addressed articles 4 to 11, resulting in 13 proposals for reformulation of the chair rapporteur that were addressed during the 11th session, and three thematic intercessional consultations in 2026. They addressed articles 12 to 24, articles 1 to 3 and the preamble, which led to discussions during this 12th session on the basis of 22 proposals for reformulation by the chair rapporteur. As a result, at this 12th session, the working group has completed consideration of the entire updated draft LBI, both through direct intergovernmental negotiations at the formal annual session and through thematic intercessional consultations. That constitutes a significant milestone in the implementation of decision 56/116. and in fulfillment of the mandate of resolution 26/9 and deserves to be recognized as a collective achievement of all actors participating in this working group, states, civil society organizations and other stakeholders and the working group which I have the honor to lead. Throughout this journey, discussions have made it possible to identify more clearly both areas in which there is growing convergence and those where divergences may persist. The proposals for reformulation from the chair-rapporteur, presented during the 11th and 12th sessions, as well as comments made to them, constitute a highly valuable input towards adequately reflecting that progress in the future. As to the way forward, I recall that, as on previous occasions, it is up to the states to decide on next steps in the conclusions and recommendations of this meeting. As I anticipated at the conclusion of the third thematic consultation, I believe that the work done provides a basis for preparing a new text that reflects the progress achieved and the areas of convergence that have been identified. For that reason, and following the practice of the working group, the draft recommendations from the chair rapporteur and the conclusions of the working group, which I will circulate at the end of the afternoon, are for your consideration tomorrow. will include the proposal that the chair rapporteur be entrusted with the preparation of a new, updated version of the draft legally binding instrument, which would serve as a basis for intersessional thematic consultations in 2027. According to the proposed road map, that version would be published on this occasion, tentatively, in February 2027. Along similar lines, and following the modus operandi that we have used in past sessions, the draft recommendations will include a reference to the proposed road map for 2027, which was circulated and published at the beginning of this week. That proposal was conceived on the basis of lessons learned in 2025 and 2026, with sufficient flexibility to adjust to the effective availability of resources. The road map, among other elements, provides for an informal consultation on the methodology in the second half of April 2027, followed by intersessional thematic consultations, two days each, between the end of April and the last week of May, focused on clusters of articles of the new updated text. These consultations will offer space for States and other relevant actors to exchange first impressions on the general direction of the new text. It should also be recalled that, next year, the Human Rights Council will receive the report provided for in OP5 of decision 56/116 and will have to consider the continuation of the measures adopted in that decision, the implementation period of which expires in 2027. This report concerning progress made in implementation of decision 56116 will be presented to the Council at its 64th ordinary session in February and March 2027, together with my own report on this 12th session, with a view to considering the possible renewal of said decision at the 65th regular session of the Human Rights Council. As reflected in the proposed road map for 2027, during the 65th session in June and July 2027, a draft text of a fully procedural nature will be presented for renewal of decision 56116 so that this working group has the necessary means to continue advancing in the fulfillment of its mandate. With that introduction, I invite States and then later other representatives of civil society and other relevant actors to share their comments on the way forward. As in previous segments, I look forward to constructive, results-oriented dialogue, which will help this process move towards the culmination of the work of the working group within an adequate, reasonable timeframe. I offer the the floor is open first of all to States I give the floor to Iceland


Iceland [47:01]:

thank you chair and thank you for the successful a successful week where we go over the new proposals We want to offer general observations on the text as a whole and suggestions in the spirit of constructive contributions for the way forward, and then touch upon a couple of articles in particular. I will try my best to be quick. Firstly, we want to note the importance of terminology coherence. The chair's non-paper rightly noted that such questions are best settled at once in articles 1 and 3 and then applied consistently throughout the instrument itself. We encourage the new draft to do so. Secondly, we want a consistent approach to domestic law qualifiers. We want to encourage a principled approach where obligations are stated clearly and the means of implementation is in the hands of states to determine, as is common in other human rights treaties. For Iceland's preliminary comments on specific provisions, we want to shortly touch upon articles 74D and 8.5 for the Chair to kindly consider when going forward. We recognize the imbalance in access to information between victims and business enterprises, and we support measures to facilitate the production of evidence in appropriate cases. Having said that, we underline that such measures should be confined to civil and administrative proceedings and should not affect the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings as guaranteed by Article 14 of the ICCPR. Then on Article 9, which is my last point, we kindly note that many states, including Iceland, are bound by regional instruments on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters. To avoid conflicting obligations, we suggest that the new draft include a clause clarifying that Article 9 applies without prejudice to existing regional or international instruments on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. And again, maybe this belonged in the segment before, but I felt it better to, you know, throw it out there now rather than ever. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [49:35]:

Thank you very much to Iceland. I give the floor to the EU.


EU [49:44]:

Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to express appreciation to the chair rapporteur for the presentation of the way forward and the explanations that were provided. I would like to go back to an earlier point. and to a comment that was made in the room regarding a reference to right to development, which we do not think is warranted. As all human rights should be covered by this draft, currently draft, legally binding instrument, we have concerns that the proposed approach would we understood to qualify the universal indivisible and interdependent nature of human rights as affirmed in the Vienna declaration and program of action and therefore we would prefer to refrain from such specific reference thank


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [50:45]:

you many thanks to the European Union the state of Palestine has the floor next


State of Palestine [50:56]:

Thank you, Chair. First of all, the State of Palestine thanks you and your team for the proposed 2027 roadmap and the methodology for the intercessional consultations and for the open and inclusive way in which you have guided this session, as well as the Secretariat and the legal experts for their continued support. More than 12 years after Resolution 26/9, was adopted and with your new draft expected in 2027. This process has reached a turning point. This working group was created to end corporate impunity and to secure justice and reparations for the peoples and communities who suffer harm. We support your preparing a new draft. Our position is that it must be based on the updated draft together with the textual proposals of states Non-papers, which have no legal status, can serve as food for thought, but not as the basis for the draft. The drafting should be guided by clear criteria, which we ask this working group to agree on this week in the following order of priority. First, fulfilment of the mandate of the resolution 26/9 to regulate in international human rights law the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, that is, business activities of a transnational character, including those carried out through subsidiaries, affiliates and value chains. That means effective mechanisms of prevention, legal liability and access to justice for victims and affected communities. The treaty should therefore be built on human rights law rather than import concepts from trade, investment or private international law that favour corporate interests. Second, retention of the provisions most protective of human rights. The drafting should prioritise the language that offers the strongest protection for human rights, the environment and the rights of victims and affected communities. Where proposals conflict, the most protective provisions should prevail. Third, prevention of conflicts of interest. Provisions and textual proposals arise from conflicts of interest should not shape the text so that the primacy of human rights, in particular over trade and investment agreements, is enshrined. Within these criteria, the draft should also retain the proposals that have gathered the widest support, so that the convergence built over the years is not lost. With regard to the 2027 roadmap, we believe that the final roadmap should be agreed and published by December 2026. It should set out when and how each step will take place and what each is meant to achieve. Giving states sufficient time to review texts before each meeting and within the limits of resources, enable trade unions, social movements, civil society and affected communities to take part. In particular, we would request a timeline, a clear timeline with the following steps. We propose that written inputs by early December 2026. to give sufficient time for review and internal consultations. We believe that States and civil society organizations should have until early December 2026 to submit final written inputs on the updated draft. Consultations before the draft, mid-January to early February 2027. We ask that the roadmap provide for consultations While we welcome the consultation foreseen with States, trade unions, affected communities and civil society organisations on the new draft before it is published, they should ensure that the text reflects the criteria agreed this week, so it responds to the concerns raised and the process retains its legitimacy and inclusiveness. Publication of the new draft by the end of February 2027. The draft should be presented and treated as preliminary text so that gaps can be closed and provisions improved ahead of formal negotiations at the 13th session. Methodology, we propose the second-half of April 2027. We support an informal consultation on the methodology for intersessional consultations so that States and stakeholders can comment on how articles are clustered and how discussions are run, and a methodology that remains a living document. Short non-papers circulated about two weeks before each consultation should serve only as food for thought without legal status. On intersessional consultations, end of April to end of May 2027. Under decision 56/116, these consultations serve to exchange first impressions on the general direction of the new draft and to identify convergence and remaining divergence throughout interactive discussions in which affected communities and civil society take part. They are not negotiations and nothing should be finalized there. Possible alignments on specific provisions should be recorded in the factual summary report to be published about a month before the 13th session and then taken up in formal negotiations in October 2027, where states remain free to confirm or revisit them since nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A secure process The roadmap depends on the resources made available to the Office of the High Commissioner and the United Nations Office in Geneva, and on the renewal of decision 56/116 at the Human Rights Council 65th session in June 2027. We ask all States to support both so that this work can continue through the 13th session and towards the 14th. A process free from capture. When this process began, its aim was clear: to regulate corporate power and to protect people from corporate greed. That goal is now being called into question. It is deeply concerning that we continue to hear interventions that prioritise political and economic interests over the rights of people. This process is about ending impunity and restoring the primacy of international law over corporate and political interests. It must remain state-led, inclusive, and free from corporate capture. And we call on all delegations to engage constructively and in good faith. The State of Palestine remains committed to a process grounded in solidarity, transparency, and justice. We owe it to the victims of corporate abuses and violations in Palestine and across the world, and to a future to future generations to move decisively from discussions to adoption and to deliver a treaty that ends corporate impunity, leaves no victim without remedy, and places human dignity back at the heart of the global economy. Thank you, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [59:15]:

Many thanks to the State of Palestine. Brazil, you have the floor.


Brazil [59:22]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me first also congratulate you for how you conducted the session this week and for your efforts in trying to find common ground on a notoriously deadlocked process that's been going on for 12 years now. But we're just taking the floor initially now to make general comments on the current state of the text and to reiterate our support, our strong support For the process itself, for the process of negotiating and adopting a legally binding instrument on business and human rights, we are, we remain committed to achieving an effective, balanced and legally sound instrument centered on the dignity of victims and affected communities. So I mentioned in the beginning of the session, for Brazil, the LBI must be guided by a clear rights-based language, establishing direct legal obligations for business enterprises, recognizing corporate breaches as violations and guaranteeing the fundamental right to full reparation. As we mentioned today as well, we advocate for a universal scope covering all business activities, coupled with a strong expression of the principle of proportionality to differentiate requirements according to enterprise size and sector. Quickly, regarding the other articles, we support a comprehensive victim-centered framework for jurisdiction under Article 9. Also, a victim-centered treaty, as we've been advocating, must ensure that restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition are enforceable realities, which is why we require strong support for effective remedy under Article 7. Establishing clear liability rules under Article 8 is also very important to deter future violations and ensure effective redress for affected communities. Finally, prevention is also a cornerstone of this instrument, so we support a robust mandatory framework for human rights due diligence under Article 6. We trust that under your stewardship and guided by the principle of human rights primacy to protecting victims, promoting responsible corporate conduct, without losing sight of the need for legal certainty as a fundamental pillar to foster economic activity, we may find common ground and reach a legally sound document that can have broad international support. Now, quickly on procedure, I have to examine further several proposals made by Palestine just now. We are generally supportive of the roadmap as proposed by the Chair, but a question that we would wish to clarify, it's if there is a deadline for the submitting of proposals pertaining to this session. If it's today, tomorrow, or any time between now and February when you proposed to to publicize the new draft. Thank you very much again for your efforts.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:02:21]:

Many thanks to Brazil. Cuba, you have the floor next.


Cuba [1:02:33]:

Thank you very much, Chair. We would like to begin by thanking the Chair and his team, as well as the legal experts with us today. for their guidance and for all the efforts that have gone into guiding our work throughout this session. We have been actively engaged in the debates and discussions at this 12th session of the open-ended working group as part of our commitment to seeing the adoption as quickly as possible of an international legally binding instrument which would duly regulate in international human rights law the activities of transnational corporations and other transnational business enterprises. We agree that 2027 will be a key year in our ongoing efforts. We trust that the new draft instrument, or the new version thereof, which will be published in February of next year, will mark a clear step forward in the work of this working group, and will duly and transparently and inclusively reflect the different stances and proposals that have been made in this room. We very much welcome the proposal made by the chair rapporteur to wit that prior consultations will be held before the next sets of informal intersessional consultations of the working group in order to decide on the methodology which will guide our work in 2027. Such a step will be essential for pinpointing those modalities which will allow us to identify places of convergence in the draft instrument. In the ramp to those processes that are on the agenda for next year, we do have some proposals to help shape our work in next year. One, the new draft legally binding instrument must strictly respect the mandate contained in resolution 26-9, which provides the scope of any such future LBI. So we must adhere to that. We reiterate that the expansion of the mandate of this document would only serve to irredeemably dilute the responsibilities, obligations and liabilities of transnational corporations. We must keep this watertight. Secondly, negotiations on an intersessional nature and at the 13th session of the open-ended working group need to begin by focusing on the scope of the instrument. We can make no further headway without knowing to whom the provisions that we intend to adopt will be applicable. Our third point, the scope must be consistently and coherently applied across all the provisions of the instrument. Fourth, The open-ended working group needs to work on the basis of a text which captures the proposals made by States and which is duly projected on the screen during our discussions, which is a point that we have made in previous sessions. Following this methodology will allow us to make robust progress on a consensus text if we can see at all times what we're working on. Fifth, The future instrument must guarantee that those transnational corporations which are responsible for or complicit in the violations of human rights are duly investigated and prosecuted, and must provide and pay reparations for persons and people groups who have suffered harm, as well as the environment and natural resources that may have been harmed. There must be a way of remedying that harm as well. Sixth, the drafting process must be governed by the principle of the prevention of conflict of interest. This means that we need to follow a drafting methodology that avoids the inclusion of text proposals that would give rise to conflict or represent conflicts of interest. We continue to advocate for the full participation of civil society organisations throughout the process. The interventions of civil society organisations at this current session are a clear demonstration of the enrichment that CSU contributions take to the work of the open-ended working group. We have taken note of the suggestion of the creation of a tribunal on transnational corporations and human rights, and we think that this is a very worthwhile suggestion, one that is worth pursuing. Eight, we need to keep in sight the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that must be the lodestar of our work. Turning now to the roadmap, we support the proposals made by the delegation of the State of Palestine. We believe it's important to take into account the input provided by civil society organizations and state parties, and this needs to feed into the updated draft. There also need to be informal consultations with states members and with society organizations before this new draft is published in order to ensure that the new draft does meet the specific criteria made just made by the State of Palestine, many of which were defended by Cuba in our previous interventions. We will continue to actively, proactively and constructively participate in the work of this working group going forward. Thank you very much.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:07:13]:

Many thanks, Cuba. The United Kingdom has the floor next.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:07:19]:

Thank you for the presentation, Chair, and for your efficient conduct of proceedings this week. We will scrutinise the roadmap more closely, but as an initial point, we would agree with Iceland that the scope, particularly as set out in articles 1 to 3, should be finalised before proceeding to consider the rest of the text. We also fully endorse the points made by the EU that responded to an earlier proposal on the right to development and a balancing of other rights with it. We do not endorse a relativistic approach to international human rights law, which is indivisible and interdependent, or that some states should have lower levels of obligations than others under international law. Regrettably, we would not be able to accept the proposed references. Like Brazil, we would also welcome your view on the deadline for submission of proposals, and we will need to consider the proposals from Palestine and Cuba further before commenting. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:08:28]:

Many thanks to the United Kingdom. Uruguay, you have the floor.


Uruguay [1:08:36]:

Thank you, Chair. As our first order of business, I would like to congratulate you on the very able way in which you have been seeing the work of this session and keeping tabs on the work throughout the week. I would also like to express our appreciation for the exchanges between member states and other stakeholders. It is our understanding that the discussion over the past few days has enabled us to make headway in our review of various different provisions, identify areas of convergence and pinpoint those areas where greater and further discussion is still needed. In that understanding, we believe that it would be appropriate for the conclusions and recommendations of this session to include a referral to the chair rapporteur to come forward with a new draft, which would also highlight the areas of convergence that have been reached during the inter-sessional consultations and during the formal consultations, as well as duly taking into account and including in that draft proposals made by states. It also needs to identify those areas where there are still differing views. In the run-up to the availability of this of this new draft, we need to not lose sight of the human rights nature of this document and ensure that any proposal further serves to strengthen the protection of human rights. We need greater clarity, convergence and coherence. We agree with that, but this should in no way dilute or reduce the levels of protection or the substantive nature of the draft. The new draft needs to keep heart and centre victims and affected persons and ensure that, where there are different versions of drafting that are suggested, we plump for that which offers the greatest levels of protection to victims. The intercessional work should continue throughout 2027 on the basis of the new text, which will be submitted for consideration by the chair rapporteur. It needs to be built around open-ended groups, which can come together to analyse the key pending substantive issues that we need to reach agreement on. It might be useful in that understanding to adopt a methodology that is progressively oriented convergence and identifies for each different clusters of articles, though, as areas where there are greater degrees of convergence and those areas where there are greater degrees of divergence that we can more effectively hone our work. We believe that it would be therefore useful to continue a transparent, inclusive and structured approach to our work with clear discussions and prior consultation on the different issues. And we also need to ensure, and here is a plea to the Chair, Rapporteur and the Secretary, that all documents are circulated well in advance of consultations and discussions in order to ensure that delegations can carry out the necessary consultations with capitals, etc., and then can come to the actual meetings and discussions with clear visions, views and stances on the various points under consideration for discussion. I reiterate that the purpose of this legally binding instrument is to promote and protect human rights against abuses and violations by transnational corporations to ensure that victims and persons of any abuses and violations do have effective access to remedy, justice and reparation. We reiterate our unwavering commitment to this process, and we as Uruguay will continue to work actively and proactively to do what we can to contribute to the adoption of a legally binding instrument that meets our aspirations and expectations. Thank you very much.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:11:38]:

Many thanks, Uruguay. Would any other state like to take the floor at this juncture? That does not seem to be the case. I will therefore open the floor to representatives of civil society and other stakeholders. And I begin by giving the floor to the Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.


Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged [1:12:10]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Unfortunately, this was a statement that was supposed to be given in the previous segment, but I will deliver it. So since this will be my final intervention, I would like to thank you for guiding us through this process for the past two years. I thank the secretariat who have worked tirelessly to make this possible and the interpreters for doing a phenomenal job to make this discussion clear and comprehensive. Chair, we believe that Article 7 requires particular attention and reconsideration because access to an effective remedy is an essential and fundamental right for victims of business-related human rights abuses. Like our friends and colleagues have said, in particular, we recommend strengthening the wording to ensure that victims can access justice without unnecessary legal, financial, or procedural barriers. The provision should also recognize the difficulties victims may face when seeking information, gathering evidence, or bringing claims against powerful business enterprises. This is important because victims may have suffered serious harm and waited a long time for justice. They should not be further disadvantaged by procedures that may make it difficult or impossible to obtain a remedy. The instrument should therefore ensure that remedies are accessible, effective and timely, and that victims can seek appropriate reparation for the harm they have experienced. We call for Article 7 to provide clear and meaningful protection for victims so that the right to a remedy is not merely recognized on paper, but can be exercised in practice. I thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:13:34]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to DKA Austria.


DKA Austria [1:13:46]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of DKA Austria, ECPAT International, and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG and PUC-Parana. We would like to thank you for conducting this process, and we would like to address the preamble, paragraph 9, also still part of the previous segment. Children are already disproportionately exposed to the negative impacts of transnational business activities, both physically and psychologically. Regarding child labour, ILO-UNICEF's 2024 global estimates of child labour affirmed that nearly 138 million children were engaged in child labour, including around 54 million in hazardous work. General Comment No. 26 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child recognizes that children have a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and that State parties are obliged to uphold this right, taking into account the core principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified legally binding instrument in the world, which demonstrates the commitment of the States present in this session to guarantee children's rights. Negative impacts of business activities threaten almost every aspect of children's health and well-being at all stages of their development. With this in mind, we propose to expressly include children's rights in the preamble to function as an interpretive dimension in cases of disagreement, compelling states at the moment of implementation and accountability linked to the LBI to ensure the protection of children's rights and the reparation of abuses or violations of children's rights. For this reason, we urge States to refer to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child in the preamble, and we suggest the following language of paragraph 9, "Recalling the principles and the rights affirmed in the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and recognizing children as independent rights holders whose evolving capacities require both respect for their agency and enhanced protection against adverse business-related impacts arising from their physical, mental, and emotional development." We also take this opportunity to suggest adding child protective language on Article 4.2 that will then read as follows: "Victims shall be guaranteed the right to fair, adequate, effective, prompt, non-discriminatory, appropriate and gender-sensitive and child-sensitive access to justice." Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:16:12]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to ESC on that. You have the floor.


ESCR-Net [1:16:24]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We thank you for your efforts in continuing to move this process forward, and we ask you to keep in mind ahead of the redrafting why we are all here and why resolution 26/9 was adopted. The UN guiding principles and non-binding measures are not enough for the states that continue to reference the UNGPs We underscore that they are the floor and not the ceiling. We need corporate accountability and this will not come through weak language that gives a pass to strong transnational corporations that influence government officials or serve as a revolving door between corporate to government positions. Mr. Chair, we ask you to consider where we are today. Fossil fuel companies have record profits as climate change rages. Weapons manufacturers profit while people are being genocided and the environment destroyed. Tech companies and government officials prey on the Global South for critical minerals while their technologies often go unregulated and their violations are met with impunity. Civil society and affected communities should continue to have their voices heard as the process continues and we advance to the new draft. We note the great expense in traveling to Geneva, as well as the increasing difficulties to obtain visas to Europe. This makes consistent attendance for the two-day intercessionals difficult for many of us. We continue to ask the Chair to consider hybrid modalities and multiple languages to ensure as many movements and human rights organizations are able to participate in the way forward. We also ask you to provide space for consultation with affected communities through written means before the new draft is published to ensure that it remains centered in the demands for this resolution to stop corporate impunity. We also want to warn against corporate capture of this process. Submissions and interventions made by the corporate lobbies and supporting states should not be considered as valid contributions to the elaboration of a new draft. We reiterate that there is a clear conflict of interest in having corporations regulate themselves. And finally, we support the proposals for the criteria for the way forward as presented by Cuba and Palestine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:18:50]:

Many thanks. I give the floor next to International Federation for Human Rights Leagues.


FIDH [1:18:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I deliver this joint statement on behalf of the International Federation for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists. We would like, first of all, to thank the Chair and his team for the methodology used throughout the intersessionals and the 12 sessions, as well as the legal experts for their contributions, which have provided several clarifications and helped make progress in the discussions. Some interventions made this week sought to align this LBI with the UNGPs. We agree that the UNGPs are a critical reference point for this process. However, we also recall that the UNGPs were introduced with the intention of beginning the process towards greater business accountability, and that they should be used as a foundation on which to build further, not as a ceiling to limit continued progress. We also note some interventions geared towards protecting existing norms, domestic legal orders and agreements. We would like to recall that this process was not set up to protect the status quo, but to question and reverse it, where it has been demonstrated to act as an obstacle or deterrent for the effective protection of human rights in the context of business activity. We call on States Parties to seize this opportunity to establish robust norms and enforcement mechanisms that will fill in existing gaps in international human rights law and contribute towards rebalancing the huge disparity of arms between business enterprises and affected individuals and communities. As we move towards a new draft, we hope to see a reinforced commitment by the working group to constructively engage in interactive negotiations with a view to reaching agreement and increasingly narrowing down the areas for further negotiation and discussion until a final text can be agreed. And in doing this, States parties should be guided by international human rights law and seek to establish the strongest possible human rights protections in line with the principle of effectiveness and the pro persona principle. Finally, to facilitate this continued progress, we call on members of the Human Rights Council to renew the additional resources necessary to continue holding inter-sessional consultations which so far have provided much needed space for in-depth exchanges on key elements. With the upcoming revised draft to consider, it is crucial to maintain that space for informal dialogue. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:21:43]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to International Organization of Employers.


IOE [1:21:54]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. Chair, first of all, thank you very much for your efforts and support. Looking back at this week, we have spent it commenting on suggested redraftings that hold no legal status, and yet not a single one of them has brought this room together. The discussions kept returning to the same fundamental questions: who is covered, which rights apply, and how national authorities will even be able to implement and enforce what is being suggested here. The comments provided by the legal experts, while useful, also showed how much remains unsettled and the unrealistic legal extent to which most of the provisions can go. After 12 years, these questions will not be answered by adding further layers to the text. We therefore hope that the views and concerns expressed this week will feed into the complete redrafting this text needs so that negotiations can resume on a constructive basis. Chair, this session did not focus on articles 4 to 11, yet these provisions are closely interlinked with those discussed this week and will be just as decisive in determining whether this instrument can work in practice. Allow me therefore to quickly recall a few key elements of our positions. Articles 4 and 5 call claimants victims before any harm has been proven, a status that only a court can establish. Every company, down to the smallest, would be treated as responsible before the facts are established. They also blur what states must guarantee with what business can deliver and are silent on the procedural rights of those accused. Article 6, as drafted, imposes rigid obligations focused on outcomes rather than process, gives no protection to companies conducting due diligence in good faith, does not allow states to exempt MSMEs, and omits employers and business organizations from the stakeholders to be involved in shaping these laws. We welcome the discussions held this morning in that regard and hope these will duly inform the next draft. Article 7 presumes an imbalance of power that does not reflect the reality of the millions of small enterprises we represent and opens the door to reversing the burden of proof. Article 8 could make individual managers criminally liable. Liability for partners a company does not control leaves one rational response, cutting suppliers and leaving the difficult markets that need investment most. Workers and communities there will pay the price. Article 9 defines domicile so broadly that a multinational company could be sued almost anywhere. By sidelining forum non conveniens, it steers claims away from the courts where harm occurred, far from the evidence and witnesses, and removes incentives for states to strengthen their own judicial systems. Finally, Articles 10 and 11 would allow claims without any time limit for an undefined category of crimes, long after evidence has disappeared, and would let claimants choose the law of another state, requiring courts and judges to interpret foreign law they were never trained in. On 2027 and the path forward, we have taken note of the proposed roadmap. We note that the new draft is expected in February and we look forward to receiving it. Delegation, states and the businesses expected to implement it need sufficient time to assess it so that all can come to the intercessional consultations prepared to engage on substance. On the inter-sessional consultations foreseen between the end of April and the end of May, we would like to recall that last year they took place during the International Labour Conference, and this year in the days immediately preceding it. Many of us present in this room as ILO constituents are fully engaged at that time. We will therefore kindly ask that the consultations be scheduled well ahead of the Conference to allow for the broadest possible participation. Lastly, we thank you for the clarification on the presentation of the report to the Council at its 64th session and of a draft text of a procedural nature at its 65th session. We would like to know when exactly between June or July 2027 the Council is expected to take its decision and how this will be communicated to stakeholders. Will it be during the 65th session itself or after that? We would appreciate a clear timeline. 2028 roadmap depends on it and all stakeholders need to plan accordingly, including the allocation of their resources. Finally, Chair, the months between now and February are decisive. Business has repeatedly asked, years after years, for a genuine exchange with the Chair-Rapporteur on how its concerns could be addressed. That exchange has yet to take place. Holding a dedicated consultation with business before the draft is finalised would be the clearest signal that this process seeks an instrument states can and companies can apply. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:26:54]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to

International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC · global labour movement [1:27:03]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. First, we would like to thank you for your guidance and support during this process. Thanks also to the entire secretariat team and the legal experts for all their support as well. And also, we would like to extend our thanks to the interpreters for all their amazing work done during this week. Chair, we are now at a critical stage in this process to develop a legally binding instrument. Having completed robust intercessional consultation and having gone through the updated draft in its entirety, It is now time for the working group to move forward with vigour and commitment to negotiate a new draft text with a view to the adoption of the treaty. We trust this will build on and enhance the protection afforded to workers, individuals and communities affected by corporate human rights harm. Chair, for too long, the separate entities doctrine has effectively converted transnational corporations into de facto networks of national level bodies, each protected by corporate veil. Local companies are often undercapitalized, making them essentially judgment proof. There is usually no effective remedy at home against the local firm or abroad against the lead firm, which may have caused or contribute to the human rights abuses. Transnational corporations and other business enterprises engaging in business activities of a transnational character are usually immune from legal accountability when the human rights abuse is caused by a supplier. Chair, we now have a majority position on the need to address the complexity and the interrelated nature of today's global economy, including the structure of the transnational corporate and the global supply chains. This LBI will address the existing accountability gaps with respect to corporate human rights abuse and end impunity that has prevailed for so long. This LBI can also effectively rely on the normative asymmetry between the legally enforceable rules that protect corporate interest through investor-state dispute settlements provision and arbitration tribunal, and the mostly soft law approach to transnational corporation obligation to respect human rights. As such, it is our expectation that the new draft text will retain and build on the most protective provisions for right holders, in line with the majority view of governments and civil society. On that basis, Chair, on behalf of the workers of the world, we would humbly request Noting the early publication is scheduled for February 2027, we kindly request the option for further consultation with the states and civil society organizations before finalizing the redrafting exercise, including by the possibility to send written inputs after the session in case some delegation were unable to travel to Geneva due to visa or financial restrictions. We know the dates for the inter-Sessional Thematic Consultation at the end of April and last week of May in 2027. While appreciating these dates will have to be confirmed, we welcome these provisional dates as they will not clash with the International Labour Conference of the ILO, which has impeded the international trade union movement to attend consultations held in the summer in the last two years. We hope the procedural renewal of the decision 56/116 during the 56th session of the Human Rights Council grant us the opportunity to continue to hold inter-sessional thematic consultations, as they have been highly useful to advance the LBI effectively and meaningfully. We note that there are inter-sessional thematic consultations planned before the formal negotiation in October, and we very much appreciate the informal consultation on the methodology for this session. Finally, Chair, in the previous segment, we asked the Chair whether the legal experts will be able to provide clarification to our question on proposal 22. Response to this critical question will be essential for trade union engagement in this process as it goes to the heart of the workers' protection required from the LBI. We look forward to engaging constructively in the next phase of this process, and we thank you, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:31:23]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Brazilian Institute for Human Rights.


Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos [1:31:31]:

I speak on behalf of Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos and Grassroots International, member of the global campaign. Thank you for convening this discussion on the way forward, which is absolutely crucial as it will determine the future of the process and the ability of the future binding treaty to tackle the fundamental gaps in international law and the complex structures that enable corporate impunity. Allow us to share some reflections and concrete proposals on this, and most specifically on the draft roadmap. To move forward, we propose a clear, time-bound process, which is very much in line with what Palestine and Cuba proposed here in the room. We support Palestine in calling for a period of states and civil society organizations to share written submissions on the updated draft and the Chair's informal proposals, closing on December 1st, 2026, has also supported by the trade unions. We ask that these inputs be published on the IGWG website by the end of January 2027. We also support Palestine's proposals on the importance of convening meaningful consultations with affected communities, civil society, and committed states in early 2027, before the publication of the new draft. This is essential to uphold the legitimacy of the upcoming draft and make sure that it complies with clear criteria that shall orient the drafting process. The three criteria presented by Palestine and supported by Cuba are, in our view, absolutely central to our way forward. We propose that these criteria be included in the roadmap and be adopted at the end of this session in the conclusions and recommendations as an integral part of the mandate to elaborate a new draft. Such criteria will allow to elaborate a treaty which complies with the mandate established by the resolution 26/9 and that can ultimately reflect the fundamental proposals and needs of peoples and communities affected by corporate violations. The very legitimacy of the next draft, as we have reiterated many times in this room, depend on its ability to reflect the proposals and aspirations of the peoples most affected by transnational corporations' impunity. Without these working groups, a deep commitment to closing the gaps in international law that allows for violations and impunity, the future treaty won't bring justice to affected communities, and therefore it won't do justice to 12 years of their sustained engagement and and communities we ask that the new draft be published only after the consultations called for above and held and that the intersessional consultation of 2027 then be dedicated to preliminary discussions on that text in preparation for formal negotiations on the 13th session in October 2027. These consultations shall be held in a hybrid manner in order to allow representatives of social movements and affected communities to participate. Mr. Chair, faced with wars fueled by corporate interest, widespread environmental destruction, and growing inequalities provoked by pro-corporate economic system that places profit over people, we have an obligation. After 50 years of UN attempts and 12 years of this working group, to fail now would be to admit that multilateralism has been defeated by sheer power. but another world will come out of this crisis. So let us make the future treaty a success story that will help us rebuild multilateralism. We owe it to the affected communities fighting impunity all over the world, many represented here in this room for the past 12 years. We ask this working group, what is the legacy we wish to leave behind? another empty instrument incapable of changing people's life? Or will we take this historic opportunity by the horns and make a statement loud and clear that transnational corporations impunity ends now? It's time for a checkmate on transnational corporate power, and the next move is in our hands. It's our responsibility, all of us in this room, to get this right. We therefore reaffirm the global campaign's commitment to the process, both within and outside of these UN walls. I thank you, Chair.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:36:39]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to SETIM.


CETIM [1:36:47]:

Thank you, Chair. Speaking on behalf of SETIM, member of the global campaign. Since the creation of the IWG, CETIM has participated in negotiations to develop an LBI on TNCs. For 12 years, we have been communicating with the global campaign, advocating for the demands of civil society. In that context, we present to the working group proposals to improve the substance of the draft treaty under negotiation. We are forced to note that the working group has got lost in procedural meanderings, trying to seek out the best possible ideology, and decision 56/116 of the Human Rights Council has not yielded the anticipated results. On the contrary, The multiplication of documents with different statutes has made the readability of the treaty so vague. The key is not to find the best possible methodology, but the big problem is the lack of political will to respect norms on human rights, on work and on the environment. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, because, as an institution for close to 80 years, the UN has long experience in developing norms and also has necessary regulations for carrying through such negotiations. Your praiseworthy efforts to reach consensus on the draft treaty are commended by all the parties. However, we need to face facts. Certain states simply do not want to hear of a binding treaty. They do their utmost to drag the process back and hinder the negotiations that are under way. Moreover, the majority of their proposals run counter to the UN charter and existing norms in the field of human rights, and that is unacceptable. For more than 50 years, All attempts within the UN to achieve binding regulation of corporation activities have been deferred. We need to put an end to this. That's why there is a need to work together with states, social and community movements affected, who've committed to a legally binding treaty, to guarantee that the future treaty is consistent with Human Rights Council decision 26/9. Concerning the detractor states, note should be taken of their objections to the draft and then move to a vote when adopting the future treaty. They will have three options. They can vote against, they can abstain or they can not participate in the vote. So, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:40:11]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Maloca International.


Maloca International [1:40:21]:

Thank you. Maloca is an NGO with land in the Amazon around the near the Amazonic jungle. In that regard, we'll be presenting our general vision of negotiations to reach a binding treaty that eliminates the power of TNCs thanks to human rights. We would like to draw on a specific case to illustrate our position. The TNC Cooper, president in the Amazonic foothills, particularly in the department of Putumayo. The current government of Colombia has plans to fumigate the zone. There are many rare earth elements there. This is a toxic element, extremely toxic, on the grounds of combating drug trafficking. However, we suspect the genuine goal could be to displace the population to facilitate the exploitation of the mining resources there. One of the shareholders of Cooper is also a shareholder of Spreyer Style, which is the corporation of the current president. The negotiated text could help us to tackle such situations, in which private transnational interests capture state institutions, which, in the case of Colombia, as well as in other countries in the region, has been possible through presidential electoral fraud imposed from the United States. That is why I urge you very much to continue your work. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:42:16]:

I would ask you to address the theme It is under consideration. I give the floor to SID.


CIDSE [1:42:25]:

I speak on behalf of SIDCE and its member organisations, Manos Unidas, Misereor, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Broderick Dellen, Trocaire, Fasten Action and CAFOD. I would like to echo the thanks expressed by others for your stewardship of this process and for the support of the legal experts. I would also like to express support for the proposal already advanced that the roadmap provide for consultations with States and civil society organizations ahead of the finalization of the next draft text, and ECHO calls for such consultations to use hybrid methodologies to facilitate the widest possible engagement of human rights defenders, indigenous peoples and affected communities. As we have observed yet again this week, their contributions continually enrich and advance this process towards the fulfillment of its mandate, while reminding all parties why it is so urgently required. All efforts must be made to facilitate this engagement in the crucial next steps of this process. Accordingly, regarding the way forward, we support the proposals made by Palestine and Cuba. Thank you.


OEIGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:43:26]:

Thank you very much. So that was the last speaker on the list. Distinguished delegates and participants, Before adjourning, let me recall how we intend to work tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the final day of this 12th session. As per the practice of this working group, at the end of the current meeting, we will be circulating to delegations the draft recommendations of the chair rapporteur and the conclusions of the working group. and, if possible, there will be responses to the questions from the UK and Brazil as to the limit for the submission of proposals. The draft recommendations will take as their basis agreed language from last year. as well as that used in previous sessions to facilitate our work, without prejudice to any final adjustments to reflect, as far as possible, certain additional elements resulting from the conversation this afternoon. Tomorrow, as per the approved programme of work, starting from 10 am, there will be a closed-door meeting between states. to negotiate the conclusions of the working group and the recommendations of the chair rapporteur. I would ask you to take due note that that meeting will not take place here, but rather in room 8 of the Palais. I would urge delegations to examine the document of draft recommendations and conclusions and maintain a constructive spirit during negotiations of this document. Once negotiations are concluded, we will restart the plenary meeting in room 12 to move to item 5 of the agenda, adoption of the report on the session. If we are constructive and efficient in those negotiations, I hope that we will be able, like last year, to move forward the closing plenary to midday with a view to concluding the session of the plenary by 1pm. On that basis, I'd like to thank both States and civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders to be attentive to messages from the secretariat via e-mail for confirmation of the holding of the plenary. With that, I want to thank you all for your very constructive participation during this session. With that, we adjourn the session and will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, the meeting of states. Thank you.