abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

18 十二月 2024

作者:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights

Day 3: Wednesday 18 December 2024

BHRRC

Morning session

The third day of the 10th session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group began with continued state-led negotiations on Article 6 – Prevention, followed by comments from civil society organisations (CSOs).

Several states, including South Africa, China and Colombia, along with some CSOs, supported Indonesia’s proposal to limit the scope of Article 6 from ”all business enterprises” to “transnational corporations and other business enterprises of a transnational character” throughout Article 6. The US Council for International Business and the International Organisation of Employers raised their concerns about the divergence of Article 6 from the UNGPs in many respects and stressed that Article 6(1) should apply to all businesses, not just those of transnational character.

Panama, Mexico, Pakistan and CSOs expressed reservations about using the term “local communities” alongside “Indigenous Peoples” in Articles 6(2) (d) and 6(3) (f), emphasising the need to clearly recognise and distinguish the rights of Indigenous Peoples’ to avoid confusion.

While supporting Brazil’s proposal to specifically include the financial sector in Article 6(2) (c), Panama proposed to further include the arms sector, which resonated with several states and CSOs. Furthermore, Panama called to reinstate the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in Article 6(3), which had previously been removed. This gathered support but the US argued that the LBI was not the appropriate forum to debate human rights such as the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Ghana’s proposal to reinstate Cameroon’s proposal of Article 6(8), aimed at protecting government processes from undue influence by commercial or private interests, respectively, was welcomed by some CSOs, along with Palestine’s suggestion to reinstate enhanced due diligence in conflict affected areas.

CSOs emphasised the need to enshrine human rights and environmental due diligence across the entire value chain, advocating for a gender-responsive approach, as well as protection of human rights defenders and children’s rights, to be reflected in Article 6. They also proposed retitling the Article to include "Prevention, Mitigation, Cessation, and Remediation."

The session concluded with legal experts addressing questions from Day 2, including those from South Africa and Panama, regarding Article 5(3) on the scope of state obligations to investigate, and the placement of specific provisions within Article 6 of the LBI.

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

Afternoon session

In the afternoon, states began discussing Article 7 - Access to Remedy. Multiple countries disliked the term “State agencies” found throughout the Article. Morocco proposed “judicial and non-judicial mechanisms” as an alternative, which Cameroon, Mexico, the US, and the UK among others, endorsed in various sub-provisions. Brazil recommended the word “authorities”, and South Africa, Colombia and Cameroon also expressed their preference for this phrasing.

Colombia, Panama, Mexico and the UK welcomed Ghana’s ongoing efforts to mainstream “gender-responsive” considerations in the LBI. Brazil continued pushing for language protecting “affected persons and communities” in addition to “victims”, a move endorsed by Cameroon, South Africa and Mexico.

CSOs voiced their concern that protections in Article 7 were diluted compared to previous drafts. Several groups rejected the phrase “non-judicial mechanisms” over concerns that this would limit access to courts. Organisations representing business interests criticised Article 7.4(d)’s reversal of the burden of proof as a violation of due process and procedural fairness.

States briefly began discussing Article 8 - Legal Liability at the end of the session. The EU presented their comment on this provision through the lens of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The UK stated it has broad reservations on the Article in its current form with concerns related to its lack of legal specificity.

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

时间线

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。