UK Statement for the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations
Delivered on 16 December 2024 at the 10th Session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights.
Thank you, Chair.
We would like to thank OHCHR for organising this session and for the continued, constructive engagement of all parties, including States, businesses and civil society organisations. We are particularly thankful to Ecuador and their delegation for continuing to chair this process.
The United Kingdom remains committed to implementing the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights. We take a business-led and transparency-based approach to tackling human right abuses in global supply chains. Next year, the UK will carry out a National Baseline Assessment on the implementation of the UNGPs.
We face an increasingly complex global landscape: ongoing and escalating conflict, humanitarian crises, increasing irregular migration and the devastating impacts of climate change. Effective action must be based on international standards and norms. It is without question that governments have a duty to protect human rights, but businesses must also navigate these realities responsibly to ensure that their operations and supply chains do not contribute to further suffering.
The United Kingdom therefore acknowledges the merits of an instrument that further elaborates the responsibilities that all businesses hold in the field of human rights. We welcome the Chair’s efforts this year to progress the draft Treaty. In that regard, the UK co-sponsored Human Rights Council decision 56/116. But we do believe more work is needed. We look forward to a full transition towards the revised methodology and three-year roadmap. As we engage in open dialogue, we must work towards a clear and common objective. Reaching agreement on the scope of the instrument is essential to moving forward.
As highlighted in the UK’s statement last year, clear definitions are needed. For example, the use of the terms ‘victim’ and ‘abuse’ need to remain consistent with the UN Guiding Principles. We should avoid language which is not clearly defined, such as, “internationally recognised human rights”, in order to ensure that the Treaty’s requirements are clear.
The broadly drafted language on jurisdiction also poses a risk of creating multiple, overlapping litigation, leading to high administration of justice costs and uncertainty for both businesses and rights holders. With international human rights obligations being primarily territorial, we must strive to find clear language that can enable effective access to justice, wherever businesses operate in the world.
We must ensure that we achieve tangible results for all. Our work must be informed by the perspectives of affected communities and rightsholders, in particular those who are marginalised or especially vulnerable to the human rights impacts of business operations and supply chains. This will also be important for avoiding any unintended consequences in implementation of a potential instrument.
We recommend that the Working Group considers flexibility in the construction of the instrument as well as in the negotiation process. To progress the negotiations in line with the envisaged timeline, the Chair may consider hosting a separate session on some of the significant barriers currently presented in the Treaty’s scope. We also urge the Chair to provide further information on how the nominated legal experts will assist us in addressing some of these challenges.
Thank you.