<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN">By <span class="gmail-gI"><span class="gmail-qu" tabindex="-1"><span class="gmail-go"><span><</span><a href="mailto:alexandre_gajardo@hotmail.com">alexandre_gajardo@hotmail.com</a><span>> representing PHM</span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN"><span class="gmail-gI"><span class="gmail-qu" tabindex="-1"><span class="gmail-go"><span><br></span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN"></span></b></p><p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN"><br></span></b></p><p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN">Report on the Open-Ended
Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations (TNC) and Other
Business Enterprises (OBE) (15-19 October 2018)<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">List of Participants:<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Afghanistan, Albania,
Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia,
Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire,
Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,
Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia,
Morocco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nigeria, Palestine, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Slovenia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Many NGO delegations.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span style="font-size:13pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN">Context</span></b><span style="font-size:13pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><i><span lang="EN">Regulating TNCs in
International Human Rights law?<span></span></span></i></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Since the 1970s, in
light of the increasing power of transnational corporations and their impact on
human rights, many discussions were held at the United Nations on the
possibility of regulating TNCs in international human rights law. However, not
any initiatives undertaken were successful to put an end to impunity and to
provide effective remedy for the victims and affected communities.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Indeed, in line with
the growing influence of the neoliberal doctrine, many States - especially
those hosting TNCs - were opposed to any kind of binding regulations that could
go against the market forces, arguing that voluntary measures were sufficient.
In their views, imposing human rights obligations to the business sector would
have a chilling effect with regard to foreign investment and development, and
was contrary to the state-centered structure of international law: only States
have obligations with regard to human rights and they are the one that shall
promote, protect, respect and fulfill human rights. To impose direct obligations
to TNCs could, in their opinion, provide an excuse for States to not fulfill
their own obligations.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">In line with this
theory, in 2011, the Human Rights Council unanimously adopted the UN Guiding
Principles on business and Human Rights (UNGP), with the broad participation of
businesses. While recalling the primary responsibility of States to protect,
respect and fulfill human rights and to provide an effective remedy to victims,
this voluntary code of conduct also recommends TNCs to respect Human Rights.
However, as an instrument of a non-binding nature, the UNGP were considered by
many States and NGOs, as insufficient to stop impunity of TNCs and provide
effective remedy for victims.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">As a result, in June
2014, at the 26th regular session of the Human Rights Council, with the support
of many NGOs, the delegations of Ecuador and South Africa announced their
intention to hold informal discussions on a resolution on business and Human
Rights.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The 26 June 2014, the
UN Human Rights Council adopted the Resolution 26/9, which created an OEIGWG <i>“whose mandate shall be to elaborate an
international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human
rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business
enterprises”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><span><b><sup><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial" lang="EN">[1]</span></sup></b></span></sup></a>.</i><b> </b>The draft resolution, submitted by
Ecuador and South Africa, was adopted with the support of the voices of the
countries of the South, despite strong opposition from the United States, the
European Union along with Japan and South Korea. These countries argued that the
resolution was a threat to the effective implementation of the UNGP, whereas
other considered that the UNGP and the process of the binding treaty were
complementary.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><i><span lang="EN">The three first sessions: and
the boycott continues...<span></span></span></i></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The first two sessions
of the WG were dedicated to conduct discussions and deliberations on the
context, scope, nature and form of the future treaty. Many delegations and
several NGOs took part to these sessions and brought constructive and
meaningful inputs. While the United States were conspicuous by their absence,
the European Union did not behave any better. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">During the three
working sessions of 2015, 2016 and 2017 and during the several informal
consultations held between May 2017 and July 2018, the EU constantly questioned
the mandate of the WG. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">At the very beginning
of the first session, the EU took the floor and expressed its opposition to the
process, recalling its position that voluntary measures such as the UNGP are
sufficient. They recalled that the UNGP were adopted unanimously and expressed
their regret that such process could divide the Human Rights Council and
undermine the implementation of the UNGP. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The EU also opposed
the very first Program of Work, arguing that the future treaty (if adopted)
shall not be limited to TNCs, but shall also regulate small and medium
enterprises at the national level. By doing so, the EU managed to paralyse the
debates for at least 4 hours. Many States and NGOs considered this as an
attempt to dilute the scope and the purpose of the treaty, by ignoring the
complex nature of TNCs and their huge power. In a spirit of consensus, many
deliberations were held between the core group and the EU, but finally the
delegation of Ecuador considered that they could not go into this. They
rejected the proposal of the EU, which decided to leave the room and to boycott
the debate, until the third session.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">If the EU decided to
boycott the deliberations, it doesn’t mean that they were not in the room at
the beginning and at the end of all sessions, to criticize the mandate, in
order to put in the final report their strong opposition.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">During the third
session, in line with resolution 26/9, the presidency proposed a compilation of
Elements for the draft legally binding instrument. The “Elements document”
contained very concrete, meaningful and constructive proposals and was welcomed
by civil society as steps towards the good direction. However, the EU and other
countries saw those elements as going well beyond the consensus reached with
the UNGP. Many meaningful discussions were held during this session and
concrete proposals were made towards the presentation of a first draft treaty
at the fourth session. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><i><span lang="EN">Towards the fourth Session:
The “Zero Draft”</span></i></b><span lang="EN"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">During budgetary
discussions held at the UN in New York on November 2017, with regard to the
2018-2019 programme, the EU questioned the holding of a fourth session in
October 2018. Indeed, the EU stated that <i>“it
is our understanding that resolution 26/9 of the HRC only foresees the
servicing of three sessions {...}”.</i> However, the UN services recalled that <i>“no further action is required in respect of
the working group’s resources, given the perennial nature of the mandate”.<span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Besides, in view of
the political evolution in Ecuador and the election of a right wing president
in 2017, the position of the delegation of Ecuador has been affected. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">In May 2018, a first
unofficial “Zero draft” was leaked among some NGO representatives. It seemed
that it was drafted by the former Chair-Rapporteur and contained very bold,
meaningful and constructive provisions, such as direct obligations to TNCs.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span><span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">However, the official <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/DraftLBI.pdf"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">“Zero draft”</span></a><span>
</span>and its <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session4/ZeroDraftOPLegally.PDF"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">Optional Protocol</span></a> presented by the new Chair
Rapporteur, Luis Gallegos, in June 2018,<span>
</span>were qualified by some NGO representatives as “catastrophic”, as it was
not reflecting the previous version leaked in May and the “Elements document”
presented during the 3rd session, rather taking on board many proposals made by
States hosting or supporting TNCs.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Considering that it
represented only a first step towards a meaningful instrument regulating TNCs
in international human rights law, public-interest NGOs, in particular the Global
Campaign, strongly criticized the document for the following reasons:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not contain any direct
obligations to TNCs<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not provide the creation
of an effective implementation mechanism, such as an International Court on
Transnational Corporations and Human Rights<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not contain a gender-based
approach<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not lift the corporate
veil, as it ignores the inherent complex structure of TNCs and their value
chain<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not contain provisions to
regulate International Economic and financial Institutions and other financial
entities<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normalCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN">It does not contain provisions on
conflict of interests and undue influence from TNCs in the political process<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Some NGO
representatives expressed their concern that some States would try to kill the
process, by disputing the legitimacy of the mandate, and by trying to
re-negociate a resolution at the next session of the Human Rights Council.
There were indeed some clues that suggested these concerns. In particular, the
EU made a troubling statement regarding the legitimacy of WG without clear
mandate during the September 2018 HRC session. It also repeatedly questioned
the legitimacy of the binding nature of the treaty, of the presidency and of
the working group regarding the UNGP.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span style="font-size:13pt;line-height:115%" lang="EN">The Fourth Session<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The fourth session was
opened by Kate Gilmore, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Right, with a
strong statement of support from the OHCHR. She called on States to address the
perverse disbalance between victims and the impact of transnational
corporations on Human Rights. She recalled that there were many divergences
among states to ensure accountability but that there was a shared aspiration
that corporate impunity ends.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Luis Gallegos</span></b><span lang="EN"> was elected as Chair-Rapporteur.
Many NGO representatives saw his election as a threat for the future of the
process, as it seemed that he was not aware of all the issues and generally too
favourable to the views of western countries.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Dominique Pottier</span></b><span lang="EN">, member of the french
National Assembly, was invited to make a statement as a keynote speaker. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The whole 4th Session
was structured as an interactive dialogue between experts panelists, States,
NGOs and other relevant stakeholders, to discuss and share views on Articles of
the zero draft.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">In the opening of the
session,<b> Togo</b>, <b>on behalf of the African Union, </b>made a strong statement and
expressed its attachment to the spirit of the resolution 26/9, to the whole
process and to the mandate. It recalled the necessity of having a strong
instrument, as TNCs are using legal disparities and policies to increase their
profit, therefore affecting Human rights. African States generally took
constructively part to the whole process, making meaningful proposals and actively
participating to the discussions (in particular <b>South Africa, Mozambique </b>and <b>Namibia</b>).
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">The Holy See</span></b><span lang="EN"> also made a strong and
victim-oriented statement, expressing its support to the process. It is worth
noting that it mentioned the fact that FTAs and Investment treaties can be
obstacle to legitimate measures protecting HR. <b>South Africa</b> was also a strong supporter of the treaty, stating
that <i>“we must adopt such treaty”</i>.
They recalled the need to close the current gaps relating to unregulated
activities of TNCs, to impose direct obligations to TNC and to address the
problem of access to justice and remedies.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">The<b> European Union</b> said that it was time
to overcome divisions among States. They expressed their disappointment that
many of their proposals were not accepted. They said they would like to adopt a
new resolution to reaffirm the mandate of the WG, but regret that their
proposals have not been taken on board. They recalled their position regarding
the scope of the treaty, called on a broader participation of the private
sector. They stated that they reserved their position and that they would not
engage in the discussion formally, as they don’t have a negotiating mandate. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">This kind of statement
was generally supported by <b>Peru</b>,
which made a introduction statement <b>on
behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico, </b>expressing the same views and
concerns regarding the process. During the fourth session, these countries were
strong opponent to the views of NGOs, conveying the voices of the EU and its
supporters. They recalled several times the role of the UNGP and their
“authoritative” nature. They tried to extend the scope of the treaty to all
enterprises and to exclude any direct obligations to TNCs. Brazil in
particular, was a very strong opponent to the process.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">This kind of
opposition was also conveyed by <b>Albania</b>,
which seems to have been mandated by the EU to make its statements.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Argentina</span></b><span lang="EN"> seemed to be very prudent with this
issue, calling for caution and recalling the existing initiatives, especially the
OECD guidelines. <b>Costa Rica</b> made an
ambivalent statement. While supporting the process and affirming that they
conducted national consultation, they affirmed the need to include all
enterprises in the scope of the treaty. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Indonesia</span></b><span lang="EN"> supported the process, but it seems
that they were concern about their need to strike a balance between their
different priorities (development, environment, poverty eradication, etc.).
They recalled that they host many TNCs, including in the extractive sectors.
They are aware of the need to ensure that the business activities promote HR
within their community and to provide remedies if violations occurs. But at the
same time, they recalled their development priorities. They expressed their
view that the scope of the treaty should not include small and medium
enterprises. <b>Sri Lanka </b>supported the
mandate and the process and made some substantive suggestions during the
session.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Philippines</span></b><span lang="EN"> fully supported the process, made
very good statements and engaged constructively with civil society during the
whole week.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Egypt, Algeria, Cuba, Azerbaijan, Uruguay, Bolivia, El Salvador and
Venezuela </span></b><span lang="EN">made good statements to support the mandate
and the process and took meaningully part to the discussions. They expressed
the need to regulate TNCs. <b>Egypt</b>
called on the need to strike a balance between investments needs and Human
rights and was strong in defending the mandate. They made quite good statements
in this regard, all along the process.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Palestine</span></b><span lang="EN"> was also a strong supporter of the
process. They were very open to inputs from public interests NGOs and made very
good statements in this regard.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">France</span></b><span lang="EN"> took the floor three times during the
process. In the beginning, under the Article related to prevention (Article 9)
and at the end of the session.They basically conveyed the views of the EU,
while talking about their national experience and the recent adoption of a law
regulating TNCs.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">New Zealand </span></b><span lang="EN">didn’t play a constructive role,
took the floor at the beginning of the session, opposed the legitimacy of the
mandate and left the room.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Azerbaijan</span></b><span lang="EN"> took substantively part to the
debate. They often insisted on the respect for equal sovereignty and territorial
integrity as the main principles governing this WG, while also calling to
regulate TNCs under international law.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">Switzerland </span></b><span lang="EN">said they were skeptikal and
announced that they won’t participate. However, they said the draft zero was an
improvement compared to the elements presented at the 3rd session. They
expressed their concern that this process could slow the implementation of the
UNGPs and called on better define the scope of the treaty, by including
national enterprises.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">China India and Russia </span></b><span lang="EN">played a vague and
ambivalent role during the fourth session. While constructively participating
to the discussions, even defending the mandate of the WG, they also expressed
their thought that it was too early to have a binding treaty on this issue.
Russia thought that the scope of the treaty was too broad. China recalled the
intergovernmental nature of the WG. India said they held intensive national
consultations and that the treaty should not include national enterprises. All
three countries said that there was a need for flexibility in order to reach a
broad consensus.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">End of the session: Conclusions and Recommendations<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">At the end of the
session, the Chair-Rapporteur presented its conclusions and recommendations. A <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session4/DraftReport.docx"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">draft report</span></a> of the session was also
circulated. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">To express its
opposition, the EU didn’t take part to the adoption of these conclusions and
recommendations. Moreover, many States expressed their opposition, and hours of
discussions followed on whether the dialogue was “constructive” or not, or if
the participation was “broad” or not. Brazil was particularly virulent in this.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN">Finally, the
conclusions and recommendations were adopted, after several amendments and the
EU came back in the room, to take the floor and deliver a very long statement,
underlining the current division among states and called on negotiating and
clarifying the mandate of the WG. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><span lang="EN"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-normal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><b><span lang="EN">South Africa</span></b><span lang="EN"> made a very powerful final
statement and express its strong support to the WG. <b>The Global campaign</b> was the final speaker of the session. It made a
strong statement in favour of the process and the mandate.<span></span></span></p>
<div><br clear="all">
<hr width="33%" size="1" align="left">
<div id="gmail-ftn1">
<p class="gmail-normal" style="line-height:normal;margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><sup><span lang="EN"><span><sup><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial" lang="EN">[1]</span></sup></span></span></sup></a><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN"> 20 members of the HRC voted in favour, 13
abstentions<span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>