"Report on the ninth session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (“treaty”)", 7 Dec 2023

...A total of 76 UN Member States and Palestine, as well as the EU representing its 27 Member States, took part in the negotiations. Côte d’Ivoire spoke on behalf of the African Union with its 55 Member States...

[C]ountries from the Global South in particular, as well as the UK and the USA, made a particularly large number of contributions...

The delegates spent a long time discussing the preamble...[T]hey debated which UN conventions and declarations should be explicitly mentioned. Brazil, Honduras, and Malawi...were in favor of mentioning the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, on human rights defenders and on the rights of indigenous peoples. Bolivia, South Africa, Malawi, Colombia, and Egypt also called for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants to be mentioned. The UK, Chile, Panama, Honduras, Ecuador, South Africa, and Malawi called for greater emphasis on labor rights... Others demanded greater consideration of children’s rights and people with disabilities as well as...special attention in conflict areas. While China, Egypt, Malawi, Brazil, Honduras, Cuba, and Colombia wanted to reverse the reformulation of “corporate obligations” to “corporate responsibility”...the UK, the USA, Panama, and Peru spoke out against this...

...Article 1 was negotiated...This included the definition of “victims”, the question of whether we should speak of “human rights violations” or “human rights abuses” in the business context, and how these should be defined...

...[T]he states finally dealt with the highly controversial Articles 2, on the purpose of the treaty, and 3, on the scope of application. One issue was whether the agreement should regulate all business activities or only transnational corporations and business activities of a transnational character...

...Article 3, in addition, dealt with which human rights should fall under the scope of the agreement. Cuba, China, Egypt, and Iran, among others, wanted only internationally recognized human rights agreements to be included, Mexico and Colombia all recognized human rights, and Panama and Peru all human rights...

...[T]he Chair...proposed...that a new resolution be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council for a vote at its March 2024 session. According to the Chair, the resolution should provide the process with more financial and human resources...Many state[s]...were hesitant and expressed concerns that the controversial question of the scope of application would also be discussed in the UN Human Rights Council...Some delegates doubted that they would be able to agree on the scope...before the next UN Human Rights Council session...While...there is a chance that the resolution could give the process new impetus and resources...there is a risk that the process could be completely derailed...

...The African Union, the Latin American states and the EU were ultimately surprisingly united in not wanting a new resolution...

...Transparency and the involvement of all regions will be key to avoiding incidents at the next round of negotiations in fall 2024 similar to those that had occurred with the African regional group during the previous ninth round...