Civil society organizations are urging governments to put human rights at the center of negotiations for a legally binding international treaty aimed at holding transnational corporations (TNCs) accountable for human rights abuses.

In June 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 26/9, which launched the process to develop this treaty by creating an open-ended intergovernmental working group. The goal is to create a strong, legally binding instrument to regulate, under international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises.

Ten years later, in July 2024, the Human Rights Council adopted a decision to strengthen the process by organizing a series of focused meetings — known as thematic consultations or “intersessionals” — in Geneva between 2025 and 2027. These meetings bring together legal experts and government representatives to examine specific parts of the draft treaty in more depth.

The first consultation, held in April 2025, focused on the rights and protection of victims, and how people can access justice if harmed by corporate activities (Articles 4, 5, and 7). Ahead of this meeting, the Global Campaign for a Legally Binding Treaty — which includes La Via Campesina — raised concerns about the selection of legal experts. The Campaign stressed that experts should support the treaty’s original goal of binding obligations, have no ties to the corporate sector, and be grounded in communities, trade unions, or social movements — with at least three from the Global South. Despite this, many selected experts were seen as aligned with voluntary frameworks and too close to corporate interests.

The second round of consultations took place in Geneva in June 2025, covering issues like prevention, legal liability, jurisdiction, applicable law, and statutes of limitation (Articles 6–11 of this draft).

Speaking on behalf of La Via Campesina, CETIM, and the Global Campaign, Pierre Mason of Confédération Paysanne delivered a closing statement.

He warned that without binding legal measures, the treaty risks failing its purpose. He called for strong prevention mechanisms, specific obligations for corporations, enforceable sanctions, supply chain liability, and broader jurisdiction — including banning legal loopholes such as forum non conveniens, which lets courts dismiss cases if they believe another country is a more convenient forum, even if the original court has jurisdiction.

Frustrated by the overly technical discussions, campaigners reminded States that affected communities are experienced and active participants — not passive observers. They urged negotiators to remain guided by the spirit of Resolution 26/9, focusing on real-world abuses and effective remedies.

Responding to corporate concerns about small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), campaigners argued that a strong treaty would protect these businesses. SMEs are often held accountable for violations, while larger transnational corporations avoid liability through jurisdictional gaps. A binding treaty would level the playing field and prevent responsible businesses from being undercut.

Campaigners also condemned offensive comments made by corporate representatives, including claims that Global South countries are corrupt or would lose investment. “Corruption exists everywhere,” they noted, “and the corrupt is almost always a company or its agents.”

During the June inter-sessionals, they cited well-known corporate abuses in countries like Ecuador, Palestine, Uganda, and Nigeria, and called on the Working Group to deliver a treaty that ends impunity. They also welcomed Mexico’s proposal to allow written submissions after the session and reaffirmed their commitment to the process — under the mandate of millions of affected communities.

For more about the Global Campaign and its updates, visit www.stopcorporateimpunity.org