User:Rrrwrty/sandbox

<!-- PAVING THE WAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH A BINDING TREATY: PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES BY [Student’s Name]

Course’ Tittle Name of the Professor Name of the Institution Location of the Institution Date

1.	Introduction After major corporate failures in the past years, the issue of corporate human rights regulations is being emphasized. This affects the impact of the business activities of international organizations (TNCs) on aspects of human rights law. Globalization has provided many opportunities and challenges for corporate governance to prevent various human rights violations that occur during their business hours. The economic globalization has provided huge opportunities as well as numerous challenges in regulating the corporations to prevent various human rights abuses occurring during their business operations. The instances of human rights abuses occurring in the business corporations include lack of ensuring labour rights, forced labour, child labour, land grabbing, illegal violence in the communities, poor maintenance of safety and healthy work environment, polluted environment and destruction of its resources. Therefore, the roles and power obligations of companies in their operations are widely considered for ten years to acquire favourable employment conditions. The concept of business and human rights (BHR) has been developed over the years with the introduction of "soft legislation", meaning non-binding guidelines and principles, proposed by international organizations, for example, the United Nations (UN), the OECD-the International Organization for Standardization (OECD), ISO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) for provinces to be recognized in the management of international corporations or TNCs and other entities (OBE) The international organizations have laid down broad, non-binding and voluntary corporate practices and standards to be followed by the TNCs to create positive impact on economic and social context.  However, in 1988, the United Nations (UN) made its first attempt to create a non-voluntary code of conduct for the BHR called Norms on the Responsories of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises on Human Rights ('UN Norms') , in order to regulate the TNCs which had been failed upon opposition and non-adoption by the business enterprises. However, the UN has made further efforts to regulate TNCs by introducing the Global Compact Human Rights Program as part of corporate ethics and by issuing the United Nations Guidelines on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011 based on the three-pillar structure of the 'Protect Framework,' Respect and Remedy 'in this regard The UNGP was unanimously approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2011 which mandated that corporate rights obligations in corporations be included and that international standards be set as a global standard for protection against human rights abuses by business organizations. The UNGP was the first official document to be unanimously adopted and involved all stakeholders with a high level of awareness and willingness to listen to BHR matters and led to the promotion of appropriate guidelines and reports. However, there have been obstacles to the implementation of UNGPs, especially in the area of access to remedies and justice for victims of human rights abuses in the business world. In addition, increased commitment is needed by countries to do so by developing National Action Plans (NAPs) and strengthening ties effectively rather than simply declaring that they understand BHR. The UNGPs were the first ever legitimate document that was unanimously adopted and engaged all the stakeholders with enhanced awareness and willingness towards listening to the BHR issues and led to spurring development of the relevant guides and reports. However, still there have been impediments in the implementation of the UNGPs especially regarding access to the remedies and justice to the victims of abuses of human rights in the business activities. Furthermore, an increased willingness is required by the states in such implementation by developing National Action Plans (NAPs) and enforcing the obligations effectively rather than simply declaration of their understanding of BHR. The above-mentioned guidelines of the UN, OECD, ISO and ILO constitute ‘soft law’ framework regarding BHR that consists of characteristics including non-binding obligations which state to co-operate through legal processes as a form of remedy to the adverse human rights impacts. However, these instruments cannot deal particularly with the breach of human rights obligations nor contain specific provisions on accountability, supervisory and oversight requirements. Therefore, despite having some hard law characteristics by setting out specific principles on controlling corporate conduct, the above-mentioned OECD and ILO guidelines and UNGPs on BHR fail to provide remedies to the consequences of the breach of human rights and therefore lack in demonstrating corporate responsibility in this context. Hence, there has been an urge for the inclusion of hard law, i.e. binding legal instrument, in the BHR context in order to effectively deal with non-compliance issues by the TNCs. However, the debate of whether the soft law remains an essential tool for governance of the corporations in the context of BHR has been ongoing due to the reasons of lack of consensus between the states regarding the status of corporations under international law that determine the extent of such corporate responsibility and political will in accepting it. Thus in order to determine the regulatory framework in the BHR issues for corporations, the requirement of analyzing the advantages, disadvantages, risks, threats and practical challenges of implementing corporate human rights responsibility and enforcing the obligations in a comprehensive manner by balancing the soft law and hard law approaches is a major concern in recent times. This issue has been furthered with the question of necessity of creating a binding UN Treaty to reach consensus at the international level in implementing the corporate responsibility that also extends to certain domestic initiatives by the states to legalize BHR obligations in their own jurisdictions. However, the argument that soft law remains an important tool in corporate governance in the context of the BHR has been ongoing for reasons of non-international agreement on corporate status under international law that determines the extent to which such an obligation to co-operate in the adoption is therefore determined. Organizational BHR, the need for positive, negative analysis, risks, threats and practical challenges to implement corporate rights responsibility and enforce obligations broadly by measuring flexible law and strict legal mechanisms has become a major problem in recent times. This problem has been further exacerbated by the question of the need to establish a UN Commitment Agreement in order to reach an international level agreement on the fulfilment of corporate obligations which also extends to specific provincial plans to authorize BHR obligations in their territories. This endorsement by the UNHRC was an indirect consequence of the efforts made by the UN since 2005 with its Special Representative Professor John Ruggie followed by 2008 U.N. Framework on Business and Human Rights that led to the remarkable adoption of the 2011 UNGPs. In view of this, the urgent need for a BHR Agreement was reached in September 2013 by the Ecuadorian team at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said it needed to move forward with a legal obligation to regulate TNCs and ensure justice and remedy for human rights abuses. in the conduct of business entities. On June 26, 2014, the UNHRC approved. The historic struggle for the UN binding Treaty includes discussions and considerations in the past five years during 2015-2019 in the sessions of the OEIGWG that led to the creation of elements of the legally binding treaty, a Zero draft and first and second versions of revised draft  were published respectively in September 2017, July 2018, October 2019 and August 2020. These instruments were the result of negotiations to develop a binding treaty on BHR when the debates have been persistent in this regard with questions as to how the treaty would deliver to all the stakeholders, complement the soft laws including UNGPs and the content, scope and concerns of the drafts to be created. 2.	Effectiveness of the BHR framework in the implementation of the corporate human rights responsibilities This chapter on research provides insights into the study by evaluating the research topic through various literature. This part of the study helps to evaluate the current management structure in the implementation of corporate human rights responsibilities and to address the overall gaps required for the analysis of innovation. The study finds the chapter through three key areas identified by research questions such as assessing the effectiveness of the current Business and Human Rights (PHR) framework in the implementation of corporate human rights responsibilities; Identifying the justifications for creating a binding agreement in the BHR and the practical challenges and implications of implementing a binding agreement in the BHR. Finally, identify future opportunities moving towards a bond agreement in the BHR. 2.1.	Previous BHR Initiatives Since the 1970s, there have been efforts and initiatives to adopt international binding agreements and regulate multinational corporations (MNCs) through OECD guidelines for multinational corporations, which were eventually adopted by the then UN. In the code of conduct governing the operations of MNCs. The above-mentioned OECD guidelines were incorporated into the 1976 OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinationals, which contained recommendations on a wide range of policies for MNCs and business responsible business, starting with consumer interests, science and technology, competition and taxation. These guidelines have been further revised in 2011 which is a template of recommendations by governments to the TNCs and the only multilaterally agreed comprehensive code where those governments have committed to promote BHR. Regarding the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, Ethics on employment, human rights, the environment and disclosure of information. These guidelines were further revised in 2011, which is a template for governments' recommendations to TNCs, and the only comprehensive code of diversity that those governments have promised to promote PHR. . In addition to the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, it was further argued that these guidelines have though specifically recommended that the corporations have to be legit in solving the problem. It is argued that they have the characteristics associated with strict law due to the setting of precise standards of conduct for organizations. In addition to the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, it has been suggested that these guidelines specifically co-operate with formal processes in resolving aggravated human rights abuses caused by organizations, but they are not defined as 'formal procedures'. Furthermore, the guidelines provided their interpretation to third-party review bodies in individual countries labelled as National Contact Points, which would facilitate enforcement but would not impose any legal consequences on companies for violating these guidelines. Therefore, it has been decided that the OECD guidelines are pure soft law despite some difficult legal characteristics. Therefore, it is concluded that the OECD guidelines despite having some hard law characteristics are rather pure soft law. The next attempt of creating a BHR regime had been in 1980s, when the negotiations failed due to the increasing competition by the developing countries in attracting foreign investment to get rid of the debts resulted from the oil-price crisis of 1979 and consequently, the UN Commission on TNCs was abolished. The next attempt to create a PHR regime was in the 1980s, when negotiations failed due to increasing competition from developing countries to attract foreign investment to get out of debt as a result of the 1979 oil price crisis. The TNC Commission was abolished. The second failed attempt was made in 2003, when the UN recognized the liability of transnational corporations and other business entities ('UN rules') for human rights as the first non-binding tool. The security related draft was prepared by the sub-commission. And the promotion of human rights. It follows the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of companies to provide protection to consumers and to address issues related to the prevention of corruption and environmental damage. Therefore, the UN. Although it is not recognized by the Human Rights Commission, the UN, the creation of the regulations is the first attempt to impose the promotion and protection of human rights by TNCs other than the states under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This follows the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of the companies in order to provide protection to the consumers and address issues on prevention of corruption and environmental harm. . In 2000, the UN. Global Compact is another internationally recognized standard, referred to as the "World's Largest Voluntary Corporate Sustainability Initiative", which aims to encourage businesses to align their strategies and operations with human rights, labor and environmental rights and anti-corruption rules. , And make such efforts in support of social goals. UN Convention on Standards of Corporate Behavior Global Compact has issued ten ambiguous policies, which, in the absence of monitoring and third-party oversight rules, are inaccurate in describing such standards and consequences of violation, which constitutes pure soft law in the BHR framework. The UN Global Compact has provided ten vague principles on standards for corporate conduct and thus lack of precision in describing such standards and consequences. In 2005, the then UN. The Commission on Human Rights called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint a special envoy for human rights and the TNC and other business organizations, in response to which John Rocky, a political scientist and professor at Harvard University, was appointed. For such purpose. . In 2008, after extensive research and consultation with a number of stakeholders on the fundamentals of the framework, Rocky proposed a three-member framework in the BHR entitled "Protection, Respect and Resolution": i) The State has a legal duty to protect individuals against human rights violations by third parties, including business Within their jurisdiction to protect them; ii) the responsibility of the business to respect human rights; And iii) the need for more effective access to solutions for victims of human rights abuses: States have obligations to provide judicial and non-judicial solutions, while business has a responsibility to provide non-judicial solutions. Professor Rocky has identified governance gaps created by globalization as the root causes of contemporary problems related to PHR. He has also identified international organizations such as the ILO and O in his studies. He has also found in his studies that the international organizations such as ILO and OECD have given recognition that the business is entitled to the responsibility of respecting human rights and joining the UN Global Compact. Overall, this framework of Ruggie was successful to the extent that his mandate mentioned in the core principles of the three-part framework was extrapolated with a margin of about 4 years by the UN Human Rights Council until 2011. After major corporate failures in recent years, the issue of corporate human rights obligations is being emphasized. This affects the impact of the business activities of international organizations (TNCs) on aspects of human rights law. Globalization has provided many opportunities and challenges for corporate governance to prevent various human rights violations that occur during their business hours. Conditions of human rights abuses in business enterprises include uncertainty about workers' rights, coercion, child labour, land grabbing, illegal community violence, unsafe environmental care and a healthy working environment, polluted environment and the destruction of its resources. Therefore, the roles and power obligations of companies in their operations are widely considered for ten years to acquire human rights in particular, in the sense of business. . The concept of business and human rights (BHR) has been developed over the years with the introduction of "soft legislation", meaning non-binding guidelines and principles, proposed by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Organization for Standardization (OECD). ISO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) for provinces to be recognized in the management of international corporations or TNCs and other entities (OBE) . International organizations have set wide-ranging, non-binding and voluntary company norms and standards to be followed by TNCs to create a positive economic and social impact. . However, in 1988, the United Nations (UN) made its first attempt to create a non-voluntary code of conduct for the BHR called Norms on the Responsriers of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises on Human Rights ('UN Norms')., in order to control TNCs that have failed in the opposition and rejection of business entities. Human rights in business context and the responsibility to be taken by the enterprises in cases of causes relating to “adverse human rights impact” and risks of abuse of such rights by them and further discussed that how the structure, size, ownership and operational context is responsible in cases of human rights violations. The guiding principles also suggest the aspects of preventing and mitigating the adverse human rights impact by the enterprises and take such necessary steps in this regard. However, the study of the European Parliament on the implementation of the UNGPs on BHR found that there are certain challenges in such case if the principles are implemented by the states, such as, lack of awareness about these principles along with broader human rights and business issues among both government officials and also other stakeholder parties. Such lack of understanding and awareness by the states and the stakeholders were also identified by the UN Secretary General in its mandate and report in 2011 and 2012 which led to the creation of global fund by the states to enhance the capacity of the stakeholders in order to implement the UNGPs and has been supported by the business enterprises as well. In addition, another key challenge in such implementation of the UNGPs is the lack of financial and human resources, which are essential in order to develop relevant policies, national action plans and regulations, to ensure their effective implementation, enforcement, monitoring and prosecution. Other major factors that prevent effective implementation of the UNGPs by the states include: lack of co-ordination by the government departments; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc. 2.2.	Status of current BHR regime Currently, there is no comprehensive and legally binding and enforceable UN treaty on imposing corporate human rights responsibilities upon the TNCs, except the ongoing attempts of the Zero draft and the revised draft versions created in the past three years since 2017 which aim for enforcing such treaty in near future. It has been deemed that the zero draft provides crucial provisions in ensuring corporate accountability by upholding the requirement for the businesses to adopt human rights due diligence policies and procedures. Thus, it has been also stated that the governments of the states have to support such draft treaty on imposing binding obligations upon the business organizations in this regard. Apart from that until such initiatives of draft zero or revised treaty, the historical context referred the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 which has provided such provisions that covered even business organizations as organs of society which have to promote respect for the human rights and freedoms and to secure their universal and effective recognition by progressive means. However, most of the international laws including the ILO treaties impose indirect obligations upon states to take action and reasonable measures within their jurisdiction against violations of human rights by the businesses. Moreover, the nature of the treaties and their ratification is a significant matter for consideration as such international human rights treaties are neither binding upon all the states nor universally ratified. In addition, although these general human rights treaties impose obligations on States, they lack particularity regarding the scope of the duties that the states have to impose on business organizations and companies.

2.3.	Limitations of the existing framework The first vibrant limitation of the currently existing BHR regime towards binding treaty is lack of enough legally binding and enforceable UN treaty on imposing corporate human rights responsibilities upon the TNCs. The only outstanding binding treaty is the zero draft, which aims at enforcing such treaty in near future. Another limitation is the lack of compliance to the laws regarding the international business and human rights. Diligently, the compliance may occur with or without consideration to the human rights. For this reason, it is hoped for Europe to adopt due diligence laws mandatory on human rights for well international corporation. Lastly, insufficiency witnessed by some of the national laws by certain countries that fails to protect human rights against some companies remains a great threat to the international community in terms of business and human rights as per the TNCs.

3.	Justification of creating a binding treaty The need for a binding treaty is justified due to reasons relating to the limitations of the previous and existing BHR framework which include : i)	lacking clarity regarding the availability, characteristics and length of corporate human rights responsibilities under international human rights laws and relevant conventions and treaties; ii)	states being the principal abusers of business and human rights by being too corrupt and having no power to protect people from influential business corporations; iii)	absolving of liability against human rights violations by the parent companies for commission of such abuses by subsidiaries on the basis of norms separating legal personality and limited liability; iv)	obstacles and legal barriers experienced by the victims in getting access to justice which include excessive litigation costs and doctrine of forum non convenience. Regarding such need for treaty, David Bilchitz argued to impose binding obligations on corporations, in order to clarify relevant norms and further that the rights to businesses in international economic transactions and investment treaties do not always violate human rights and to facilitate victims’ access to remedies. Bilchitz have provided arguments for and against a treaty stating that drafting a treaty would take time, but in the meantime, other existing non-binding instruments including the UNGPs are there and has concluded that as the global economic power which is shifting to the South, so if the BRICS countries support a treaty the developed countries in the North could not go against it and as a result if the TNCs are obliged to meet the provisions of the treaty, they would become an international standard for the corporations. As a result of understanding the need for a binding treaty, summing up the timeline since which the attempts were made of creating a UN international standard binding treaty include : i)	a unanimous adoption of the UNGPs by the UNHRC in June 2011; ii)	the Ecuador’s call for a new binding treaty for negotiation in September 2013; iii)	the Ecuador's resolution on such a binding treaty adopted in the UNHRC and another resolution placed by Norway confirming the significance of the UNGPs and asking for an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a binding treaty was unanimously adopted in June 2014 ; iv)	the first session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG) was provided with the task of drafting the new binding treaty in October 2015; v)	the OEIGWG's second session held on October 2016; vi)	the publication of a guiding document called “Elements” by the Chair of the OEIGWG for a draft binding treaty and a third session held on October 2017; vii)	the endorsement of the “Elements” by the UNHRC and it providing authorization to the OEIGWG to carry on its work on March 2018; viii)	the first Zero draft of the treaty in June 2018; ix)	the fourth OEIGWG session held in October 2018; x)	the publication of the revised draft on 16th July 2019 by the Chair of the OEIGWG; xi)	the fifth session of the OEIGWG in February-March 2020 and xii)	finally, a second revised draft published on 06.08.2020 under the chairmanship of the OEIGWG. Regarding the above-mentioned attempts as a result of justification of creating a binding treaty, the support of the civil society organizations on the proposal of the Ecuador in 2013 to negotiate an UN treaty was huge compared to the moderate level support provided by the UNHRC. Moreover, even the Ecuador's resolution of June 2014 received only 20 supporting votes in addition to 14 opposing votes by mostly the industrialized and corporate members and 13 abstention votes by mostly the Latin American members. It was argued that although the mandate provided by the resolution of 2014 is to 'elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises', it does not define TNCs and rather only defines 'other business enterprises' (OBEs), where this proposal takes into account all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operations but does not apply to local businesses registered under relevant domestic law. In addition, the second resolution by Norway in June 2014 was supported by 22 other countries from all regions. Consequently, placing it in a unique condition as it requested that the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights to prepare a report considering the merits and demerits of a legally binding instrument and further asked the High Commissioner for Human Rights to begin consultation with stakeholders considering the range of legal and practical aspects to improve access to remedy for victims of violations of BHR. Furthermore, the first two sessions of the OEIGWG were related to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument according to the UNHRC mandate. Whereas, the publication by the OEIGWG Chair entitled 'Elements for the draft legally binding instrument' were later debated in the third OEIGWG session in 2017. Therefore, it has been argued that the UNGPs provide recognition that there are limitations in access to effective remedies for victims of corporations’ failure to respect human rights, but still do not provide an enforcement mechanism and as a result its non-binding nature and lack of third party oversight, makes it a form of soft law rather than hard law. Consequently, considering the effectiveness of all the previous BHR initiatives in determining the necessity of creating a legally binding obligatory instrument or treaty. It has been argued that none of these attempts could be concluded as a hard law initiative and hence justifies such necessity (Necessity of hard law initiatives), although the OECD guidelines possess certain characteristics that could lead to the hard law end of the continuum, without requiring such adoption mandatory binding obligations. Moreover, considering the limitations of both soft law and hard law approaches, it was concluded that there was dissatisfaction regarding the ineffective implementation of the UNGPs, despite its higher appreciation during its adoption that ultimately led to the steps and attempts of drafting an international binding treaty. The voluntary and non-binding character of the UNGPs was deemed to be the limitations of the UNGPs which have been also recognized by the governments and civil society organizations. It was further argued that the UNGPs have been around for some years only and thus their impact has to be assessed with more time. Furthermore, creating a binding treaty was initially said to cause huge complexity of the business and human rights issues by many experts as it has to include all the human rights of different kinds of businesses including both national and transnational; having inherent risks within such framework and taking long time to conclude with negotiations and thus rather a soft-law approach through the UNGPs were preferred. 4.	Debates on the binding treaty, practical challenges in its enforcement and future possibilities Discussions on the creation of a bond agreement began in June 2014 with international initiatives as several states began the difficult task of completing a bond PHR tool with the following impetus: i) administrative gaps will be covered where states do not implement human rights protection; ii) The responsibilities of the companies will be set up from a central source; iii) UNGPs can be transformed into binding obligations that ensure that all organizations, regardless of their location, adhere to the same human rights standards and increase access to effective solutions; iv) The Working Group chaired talks to achieve the broader range of human rights that companies can be responsible for. However, it has been argued since then that creating a binding legal framework for PHR issues poses some risks related to state approval and a lack of global support for the binding tool. But many states did not support the proposed agreement or participate in the negotiations, without the support of these states, the largest TNCs would not have come under the agreement and therefore left such administrative gaps. Therefore, it is not clear whether efforts to create such a bond PHR tool without the support of those key states will significantly improve the protection of human rights victims in the hands of organizations. The main challenge for draftsmen of draft binding agreements is to consider their wide range of specific issues, which must be taken into account in making decisions with the necessary consensus. During the 2015 and 2016 sessions of the OEIGWG, the most discussed issues of the day were the proposed binding agreement on business and human rights liability: i) the obligation of companies to diligently demonstrate due to human rights as stated in the ‘Elements’ and the imposition on State Parties to compel TNCs and OBEs with their subsidiaries; ii) the expression regulating the legal liability of TNCs and OBEs, according to the 'elements' relating to administrative, civil and criminal aspects of human rights violations by their activities; iii) The concept of broad jurisdiction was another issue because the victims had to have access to effective solutions in the country where the violation took place or where the parent company was located or where the treaty states were expected to impose such an obligation. Guarantee for such solutions; iv) The 'elements' have proposed the International Court of Justice for Transnational Institutions and Human Rights, as well as the special chambers of existing international and regional courts, and to develop an international settlement mechanism and a non-judicial mechanism, ie to monitor initiatives taken by state parties and to communicate reports and communications. To receive; v) Provides 'elements' to facilitate mutual legal assistance to enhance judicial cooperation and to recognize relevant decisions of the court. There were also significant problems with the recognition of PHR-related states' extraterrestrial obligations. The UNGPs said that under international human rights law, states generally do not need to regulate additional regional activities of businesses within their jurisdiction and are generally prohibited from doing so in accordance with international law. Allowing the territory of one state to cause damage to the territory of another state. Despite this, some human rights treaty organizations have suggested that states take action to prevent abuse in other states by businesses within their territories. Therefore, in view of such issues, the ‘elements’ provided that the future binding agreement should ensure that the obligations of state parties to protect human rights do not extend beyond their territorial boundaries. In those times, the highest form of debate was whether the proposed agreement would be limited to businesses engaged in transnational activities or would also include local companies. The EU supported the idea of including all businesses in the agreement, otherwise it would be inappropriate and an evil compared to local competitors who violate human rights. Whereas the 'Elements' have vividly short challenged the physique and appearance of the union to the businesses involving transnational operations and contrasted with the EU's position arguing that validates drafting a treaty specifically applicable to businesses with transnational operations and excluding the local companies. This was argued with the issue that such a binding treaty is to be drafted in order to complete the international gap in law on parent enterprises liability determination beyond the government’s limits where the abuses of human rights were committed. This was further argued with the matter that the TNCs are in the most beneficial position by being able to avoid responsibility due to their transnational nature and so limiting the scope of the then proposed or draft treaty would not be discriminatory with the local companies. Other relevant debate regarding the 'Elements' was that it provided for a wider view considering every dimension recognizing human rights as covered the treaties and international conventions. Hence, At the same time, the 'elements' restrict the nature and purpose of the agreement to businesses engaged in transnational activities and contradict the EU position. At the same time, the 'elements' restrict the nature and purpose of the agreement to businesses engaged in transnational activities and contradict the EU position. It was argued that such a binding agreement should be prepared to fill a gap in international law in determining the liability of parent companies beyond the jurisdiction of the state where the human rights violations took place. TNCs are in a very advantageous position of avoiding liability due to their transnational nature, so restricting the scope of the proposed or draft agreement of the day does not discriminate with local companies. The other relevant discussion regarding ‘elements’ was that it provided a broader approach considering that all internationally recognized human rights are included in all human rights treaties and international conventions. Then, at the third OEIGWG session in 2017, the EU expressed its strong opposition to the drafting of a binding agreement by UN representatives, which would not be of little practical importance and would cover up their inability to uphold human rights by accusing states of using it. Regarding the nature and effectiveness of the ILO Tripartite Declaration, although it imposes reporting obligations on governments, it does not provide for the consequences of breach of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. As a consequence, it is argued that although the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. Among all the UN guidelines (General Principles and Global Compact), OECD, ISO and ILO, the European Union and many other member states have kept the UNGP at the forefront of recognizing the relationship between human rights and business and this has been demonstrated. by establishing national programs in accordance with these principles in order to operate effectively. According to a study by the European Parliament in 2017, UNGPs were used to some extent as OECD guidelines were in line with UNGP; however, there are still many cases of human rights abuses due to a lack of key mechanisms in ensuring the implementation of the UNGP and its non-compliant nature. In the end, the international business community did not support the "elements" because they appeared to be a major step backwards and jeopardized the important consensus reached by the UNGPs, their spirit and their words were undermined. Therefore, the “components” are contradictory and bizarre in PHR bonds; The agreement and the proposed Option Act were made, which raised serious concerns for international and regional businesses, but it was argued that they did not provide a better foundation for the potential BHR framework. Significant times in human rights Taken as a whole, the law governing the implementation of the Zero Pact Agreement and the Neglected Selection Act are not legally binding; Compare established standards and rules; It does not work for the purpose of promoting inclusive economic growth and investment; He is at risk of being prosecuted for politically motivated crimes; And - in fact - not the power to help all victims of human rights abuses. In addition, entrepreneurs are deeply concerned about the process that has led to the publication of the Standardization Agreement and the Draft Option Protocol. It also says it wants to make a significant contribution to business dialogue and human rights. However, it is worrying that no real effort has been made to ensure a solid, transparent and open process that fully embraces the expertise and experience of all stakeholders. The way in which UNGPs are created reflects the highest number of meaningful private sector involvement. The business community encourages all IGWG stakeholders to improve their negotiations with the business in addressing complex human rights issues. Entrepreneurs vehemently reject the Draft Optimization Agreement and the Draft Option Protocol. I do not believe that these documents make a significant contribution to the commercial and human rights field; Instead, they underestimate the significant progress made under the UNGP. In addition, the process followed by IGWG to date does not give business confidence that the program will provide a reliable and effective solution to these complex human rights issues. Giving credit to companies with international functions, not those with domestic jobs or SOEs, even if a few steps have been taken from the perpetrator and there is no control over that organization or its ability to influence operations, undermines the effective and full UNGP approach. The Proposed Agreement and the Draft Optional Protocol also ignore the key factors in determining the company's credit rights, namely the three ways in which a company could be harmed; The size of; Systematic human rights issues not only in the organization; Circumstances in which provinces do not meet international obligations to protect human rights and enforce important levels of employment. In addition, by increasing the use of foreign power, the Zero Draft Agreement and Draft Option Protocol ignores the monarchy and ignores human rights abuses in many provinces, while at the same time looking at international businesses to fill those human rights gaps. . In doing so, the Zero Draft Agreement and the Draft Options Protocol will exclude most victims from reaching a decision that will block significant foreign investment, and that will allow failed states to operate as human rights holders and send money to certain businesses. None of this will meet the challenges of globalization and help revitalize all economic growth and social development. Entrepreneurs want to emphasize that there are many concerns about the Planning Agreement, the Draft Options Protocol and the IGWG process do not undermine their commitment to efficiency and respect for human rights. Identifying and responding to human rights risks, including impact assessments, shareholder engagement, foreign investment and increased exposure, has become an integral part of voluntary organization activities and companies are constantly improving their efforts in this regard. Similarly, companies do not want to do business directly or indirectly with suppliers or entrepreneurs who cause human rights violations. Entrepreneurs do not support the Zero Non-Compliance Agreement or Draft Option Protocol. Both of these books undermine the business system and human rights by undermining the UNGP and the failure of countries to meet existing obligations. Companies create the risk of choosing to “cut and run” from high-risk countries, postponing investments in key projects to achieve growth and the SDGs without entering other high-risk markets. Companies must follow strict policies such as the police in their overseas supply companies to ensure that their business partners act responsibly. Worryingly, this approach will continue to undermine the role of the state, and some of its traditional functions and powers - such as testing and charging fines for business partners - should be shifted to global trade. All of these unintended consequences will significantly undermine the growth and partnership model presented under STGs. 5.	Research Methodology and Approach This chapter of the study stipulates the procedure and approach used in extracting and tabling of the results for this research. It expounds on the research design, research method and data collection process in details for more valid and reliable results. This research falls into the category of practical research as it requires an analysis of the development and implementation of the corporate human rights responsibilities in the soft law and hard law framework throughout the years and assess its impact on the business corporations dealing with the practical challenges and debates concerning the creation of a binding treaty in the BHR context. However, the research questions also require descriptive research since it describes the ongoing debates on current BHR governance framework and also assess the significance of the balance between the soft law and hard law approaches. It is also an exploratory research as it explores the practical challenges and future benefits and opportunities in creating a binding treaty and justify it in implementing the corporate human rights responsibilities effectively. As per research design approach, it is a qualitative research method due to the subjective assessment of the current corporate human rights framework, to understand the underlying challenges, standards and practices that prevail until today in order to draw the findings in favour of the binding treaty. Moreover, an analytical approach is required here to apply legal reasoning, to interpret laws, theories and practices of business and human rights and further make a critical assessment of the necessity, practical challenges and future possibilities of the binding treaty in implementing corporate human rights responsibilities. Overall, a socio-legal approach is to be adopted to understand the effect of a binding treaty on BHR upon attitude, behaviour and organizations of corporate world and vice-versa in providing remedy to the victims of the society. This study takes a qualitative approach with insights from practical research, descriptive research, explanatory, analytical and socio-legal knowledge to vividly expound on the law issues regarding the international human rights relative to the topic. Consequently, the study deployed a systematic literature review, a method which satisfied all the aspects demanded by the approach and design. Using the method, various literature sources were gathered through different searches with different key words related to the topic. Key words used during the search included corporate human rights, implementation of the corporate human rights, corporate human rights responsibility, binding treaty, challenges, future opportunities, BHR Initiatives, previous BHR initiatives, current BHR initiatives, limitations, consequences, impacts, and advancements. In this study, the literature materials consulted themselves acted in the capacity of findings to the research questions. As a result, the analysis and evaluation of the collected literatures provided the qualitative analysis designed by the study. 6.	Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion 6.1.	Findings After thin analysis of the previous, current and future BHR initiatives, the study identified a few challenges and initiative opportunities that hinders the human rights responsibility internationally. The BHR initiatives majorly looked into an improved ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. Furthermore, the study identified that implementation of corporate human rights responsibility through a binding treaty in the international community is yet to be achieved only when the corporate partners sojourned to the understandings of the binding treaty initiatives put in place. For this reason, some of the challenges facing the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as identified by the study grossed to competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. On the other hand, the study identified possibilities of future opportunities of implementation of human rights responsibilities through binding treaty initiatives internationally. According to the research, this is only possibly only when the limitations of the previous and current initiatives are surpassed. Besides, the possibility of the future implementation of the BHRs initiatives on human rights responsibility lies on the gap of a binding treaty initiative currently in place. Today, the only binding treaty initiative available is the zero draft and its subsequent drafts developed about three years ago. As a result, the need for a binding treaty initiative is justified by this gap of insufficiencies of available initiatives to enact such guidelines. Competition of the developing countries for foreign investment opportunities The study table one of the challenges hindering the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as the competition of the developing countries for foreign investment opportunities in their land. For this reason, there is breach to the guidelines outlined by the OECD annexed to the 1976 OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, that consisted of recommendations on wider range of principles starting from consumer interests, science and technology, competition and taxation to the responsible business conduct for MNCs and business ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. For instance, despite the due diligence of the law, some countries play a disparity in supporting human rights concerning the key elements outlined by the 1976 OECD declaration. Considerably, there has been several incidences of breach of these codes of conduct of employees in different multinational enterprises and transnational corporations, but with little consideration by the concerned state due to fear of losing the foreign investor in that specific developing country. Some of the common abuses of the human rights by the multinational enterprises includes lack of employment ethics, over taxation, unpleasant environment and restricted freedom. In the pictures captioned below, the first picture in figure 1 shows child abuse in a mining company while the second picture captioned as figure 2 shows employees demonstrating on poor mining environment. According to the OECD of 1976, human rights covers the protection of humans against the poor work environment and child labour. However, since the developing countries needs the companies from the developed countries (the foreign investors), none will stand out strongly to condemn such acts against human rights responsibility as outlined by the 1976 OECD principles. Failing of the UN norms on the RTCs and OBEs In 2003, the first draft of the Rules on Human Rights ('UN Rules') on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business entities was adopted by the UN Convention on Security and Development. Came to light as an unbound tool by the subcommittee. Human rights. This came in consideration to the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of the companies in order to provide protection to the consumers and address issues on prevention of corruption and environmental harm. It considered the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of companies to provide protection to consumers and to address issues related to the prevention of corruption and environmental damage. This precedes the failure of global compact policies in 2000, which has been referred to as the “largest voluntary enterprise sustainability initiative in the world”. The main responsibility of the global compact policy lies in achieving human rights, labour and environmental rights and anti-corruption rules, and takes such attempts to support social goals, which ultimately failed. The UN has failed by the rules of the Ten Unclear Policies on Standards for Corporate Behaviour. Compact is universally recognized, and thus there is inaccuracy in describing such standards and consequences as they are violated due to the lack of monitoring and third-party supervision rules. Law in the BHR Framework. . As a result of its failure, the UN the commission was forced to appoint a special envoy on human rights and the TNC and other businesses, including John Rocky, a professor at Harvard University. The expert came up with three resolutions in the BHR; Protection, Settlement and Respect through the following perspectives: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. Despite these measures, Professor Rookie conducted further research in 2011 and proposed the UNGP with the aim of mitigating the aforementioned governance gaps and ensuring better access to solutions. Victims soon. Therefore, the first 1-10 policies in the UNGPs are related to the state duty to protect; Policies 11-24 address the issue of business liability to be respected and Policies 25-31 addressing the necessities for availing victims with opportunity to legit solutions to human rights abuses. Due to such failures, the study table some of the reasons that appeared to be the source of the failures of such policies. These insufficiencies included and not limited to; lack of co-ordination by the government departments ; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc.; lack of awareness about these principles along; and lack of financial and human resources. As a result, the UNGPs are non-binding soft-law instrument in authoritative nature and of global standard, with no new obligations but reflecting international law standards in ensuring human rights in the context of business. Oblique ISO guidelines Unclear ISO guidelines is one of the factors challenging the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives. However, the (ISO) 26000 in 2010 for Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility has failed to particular address most of the underlying challenges over the matter of human rights in the international community. For instance, the (ISO) 26000 in 2010 for Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility is another internationally recognized standard which provided guidance on how business organizations can operate with social responsibility in socially acceptable manner. As a result, an international organization for standardization appeared incompetent to address most of the vibrant issues concerning the implementation of human rights responsibilities through binding treaty initiatives. Even though the policy provides an opportunity to report obligations on the government, the ILO Tripartite Declaration fails to report consequences of breach of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. Finally, the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. Insufficiency in International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines Implementation of human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives is tabled to have met its backwash through development of insufficient ILO guidelines. Through this attempts to meeting the goals of BHRs, the International Labour Organization adopted a “Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy” in 1977 with a revised version in 2017, which is another international standard in offering guidelines to TNCs, states’, bosses and servants organizations on labour and employment issues, training, work and life conditions and industrial relations and based on principles under international labour conventions and recommendations. Regarding the nature and effectiveness of the ILO Tripartite Declaration, although it imposes reporting obligations on governments, it does not provide for the impact’s defiance of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. As a consequence, it is argued that although the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. As described, implementation of human right responsibility through a binding treaty has faced several challenges on the initiatives put forward to the process. Development of business and human rights initiatives can be dated back since 1970s to date, with little progress in the transnational and multinational corporations. Despite of the attempts by the UN agencies to formulate policies against abuse of human right and mistreatment of human being by corporate states, achieving a responsible state of human right in the international community remains in its staggering condition due to several challenges outlined above. The study availed the evidences of attempts of policy formulations towards upholding human rights in the transnational and multinational enterprises. Such policies evidenced in the study included and not limited to; the BHR initiatives, OECD principles, the UN policies. Finally, some issues showing future prospects for completing the process; (i) the obligation to diligently demonstrate due to human rights as stated in the Institutions 'Elements' and the obligation on State Parties to compel TNCs and OBEs with their subsidiaries; (ii) the expression regulating the legal liability of TNCs and OBEs, according to the 'elements' relating to administrative, civil and criminal aspects of human rights violations by their activities;. States guarantee such solutions. Experts in monitoring the efforts of state parties, publishing reports and obtaining communications; Finally, (v) provide 'elements' to facilitate mutual legal assistance to enhance judicial cooperation and to recognize the relevant decisions of the court. 6.2.	Recommendations The study has identified several challenges hoovering the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives. These challenges must be solved for the process to reach its fulfilment. Starting from the BHR initiatives, some of the challenges that must be solved included competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN traditions towards RTCs and OBEs as per the law; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. Although, greater solutions lie within the solution of the gross challenges including, but not limited to; ; lack of co-ordination by the government departments; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc.; lack of awareness about these principles along; and lack of financial and human resources. Some of the recommendations put forward by the study to solve the identified gaps included ; (i)	Gap: clarification challenge regarding the existence, nature, and extent of corporate human rights responsibilities. Recommendation: the existing governance gaps would be covered where the States do not enforce human rights protections. (ii)	Gap: states being the principal abusers of business and human rights by being too corrupt and having no power to protect people from influential business corporations. Recommendation: the responsibilities of corporations would be set out from a central source. (iii)	Gap: absolving of liability against human rights violations by the parent companies for commission of such abuses by subsidiaries on the basis of doctrines of separate legal personality and limited liability. Recommendation: the UNGPs could be converted into binding obligations ensuring that all the corporations, irrespective of their locations, stick to the same set of human rights standards and increasing access to effective remedies. (iv)	Gap: obstacles and legal barriers experienced by the victims in getting access to justice which include excessive litigation costs and doctrine of forum non convenience. Recommendation: the working group headed for the negotiations achieving a liable international corporation. The earlier challenges affecting the BHR initiatives could be solved by the John’s recommendations. Following extensive research and consultation with a number of stakeholder stakeholders on the key principles of this framework, the BHR structure entitled "Protection, Respect and Resolution" has three components: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. 6.3.	Conclusion To conclude, the research established that there are a lot of things still missing for the complete implementation of the human right responsibility through binding treaty for a safer transnational corporation. Most of the world agencies aiming at peaceful coexistence among the international community such as the UN agencies, OECD, ISO, and ILO have attempted to ensure a safer world community with due diligence of human rights through formulation of various initiatives. Beginning with the PHR initiatives, the OECD guidelines in some of the efforts to ensure the implementation of human rights through the Binding Agreement, the UN Including Global Compact and the then UN Human Rights Commission. The study identified that the only existing initiative is its latest drafts related to the implementation of human rights through zero draft and binding contract initiatives. The (UN), (OECD), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) States should follow suit in managing .NC and other business entities (OPEs). As a result of its failure, the UN the commission was forced to appoint a special envoy on human rights and the TNC and other businesses, including John Rocky, a professor at Harvard University. The expert came up with three resolutions in the BHR; Protection, Settlement and Respect through the following perspectives: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. Despite these measures, Professor Rookie conducted further research in 2011 and proposed the UNGP with the aim of mitigating the aforementioned governance gaps and ensuring better access to solutions. Victims soon. Therefore, the first 1-10 policies in the UNGPs are related to the state duty to protect; Policies 11-24 address the issue of business liability to be respected and Policies 25-31 addressing the necessities for availing victims with opportunity to legit solutions to human rights abuses. Hence, after thin analysis of the previous, current and future BHR initiatives, the study identified a few challenges and initiative opportunities that hinders the human rights responsibility internationally. The BHR initiatives majorly looked into an improved ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. Furthermore, the study identified that implementation of corporate human rights responsibility through a binding treaty in the international community is yet to be achieved only when the corporate partners sojourned to the understandings of the binding treaty initiatives put in place. For this reason, some of the challenges facing the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as identified by the study grossed to competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. The findings table herein are legible for validity and reliability verification since the study takes a qualitative approach with insights from practical research, descriptive research, explanatory, analytical and socio-legal knowledge to vividly expound on the law issues regarding the international human rights relative to the topic. Consequently, the study deployed a systematic literature review, a method which satisfied all the aspects demanded by the approach and design. Using the method, various literature sources were gathered through different searches with different key words related to the topic. Key words used during the search included corporate human rights, implementation of the corporate human rights, corporate human rights responsibility, binding treaty, challenges, future opportunities, BHR Initiatives, previous BHR initiatives, current BHR initiatives, limitations, consequences, impacts, and advancements.

Bibliography Alvarez JE, ‘Are Corporations “Subjects” of International Law?’ (2011) 9 SantaClaraJIntlL 1 Bilchitz D., 'The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty' (2016) 1 BHRJ 203 Buhmann, Karin, Björn Fasterling, and Aurora Voiculescu. "Business & Human Rights Research Methods." (2018): 323-332. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Debate the Treaty’ (Business and Human Rights, 2020)  accessed 30 June 2020 Cassell D., “Building a Treaty on Business and Human Rights: Context and Contours”, (2019) 41(2) Human Rights Quarterly, 497-508 Chowdhury B., ‘Balancing soft and hard law for Business and Human rights’ (2018) 67 ICLQ 961–986 Directorate-General for External Policies: Policy Department, ‘Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (European Union, February 2017)  accessed 01 July 2020 Elise Groulx Diggs and Mitt Regan and Beatrice Parance, 'Business and Human Rights as a Galaxy of Norms' (2019) 50 Geo J Int'l L 309 Hess, David. "The Transparency Trap: Non‐Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights." American Business Law Journal 56, no. 1 (2019): 5-53. Human Rights Council, Resolution 26/9 on the Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, Geneva, 26th July 2014 International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1978) 17 ILM 422 International Organisation for Standardization, ‘Guidance on social responsibility’ ISO 26000:2010(en)  accessed 29 June 2020 Lavanga V. Wijekoon, Michael G. Congiu, and Stefan J. Marculewicz, ‘United Nations Takes Another Step in Developing a Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ (Littler Insight, 2020)  accessed 01 July 2020 Letnar Cernic J and Carrillo-Santarelli N (eds), The Future of Business and Human Rights: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for a UN Treaty (Intersentia 2018) Martens J., and Seitz K., ‘The Struggle for a UN Treaty Towards global regulation on human rights and business’ (Global Policy Forum, August 2016)  accessed 01 July 2020 McBearty S., ‘The Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty: Four Challenges and an Opportunity’ (2016) 57 HarvardILJ  accessed 30 June 2020 Methven O’Brien, Claire, and Jolyon Ford. "Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalisation to Transnational Governance and Back Again." Nordic Journal of Human Rights 37, no. 3 (2019): 216-233. Methven O’Brien, Claire, and Jolyon Ford. "Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalisation to Transnational Governance and Back Again." Nordic Journal of Human Rights 37, no. 3 (2019): 216-233. O’Brien C.M. and Ford J., ‘Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalization to Transnational Governance and Back Again’ (2019), 37 (3) NJHR 216-233 OECD, ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ (OECD Publishing, 2011)  accessed 29 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Elements for the draft legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights’ (OHCHR, 29 September 2017) HRC Res. A/HRC/RES/26/9  accessed 30 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises: Zero draft’ (OHCHR, 16 July 2018)  accessed 30 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises: Revised Draft’ (OHCHR, 16 July 2019)  accessed 30 June 2020 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Related Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (2004) (E/CN.4/DEC/2004/116) OHCHR, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide (United Nations, 2012) Rasche A., ‘” A Necessary Supplement” – What the United Nations Global Compact Is and Is Not’ (2009) 48(4) Business Society 511 Roos S.R., ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ in: Idowu S.O., Capaldi N., Zu L., Gupta A.D. (eds), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility (Springer 2013)  accessed 01 July 2020 Sixto F. O., ‘Business and Human Rights: A study on the implications of the proposed binding treaty’ (LL.M dissertation, University of Essex 2015) https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Business%20and%20Human%20Rights.%20A%20study%20on%20the%20implications%20of%20the%20proposed%20binding%20treaty.pdf> accessed 29 June 2020 UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR/PUB/11/04(2011) UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR/PUB/11/04(2011) UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (2003) (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2) United Nations Global Compact, ‘Navigating the Future of Business and Human Rights: Good Practice Examples’ (New York, 2019)  accessed 01 July 2020 Wettstein, Florian, Elisa Giuliani, Grazia D. Santangelo, and Günter K. Stahl. "International business and human rights: A research agenda." Journal of World Business 54, no. 1 (2019): 54-65. Zamfir I., ‘Towards a binding international treaty on business and human rights’ (European Parliament, April 2018)  accessed 29 June 2020 -->

perception of current food safety
PAVING THE WAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH A BINDING TREATY: PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES BY [Student’s Name]

Course’ Tittle Name of the Professor Name of the Institution Location of the Institution Date

1.	Introduction After major corporate failures in the past years, the issue of corporate human rights regulations is being emphasized. This affects the impact of the business activities of international organizations (TNCs) on aspects of human rights law. Globalization has provided many opportunities and challenges for corporate governance to prevent various human rights violations that occur during their business hours. The economic globalization has provided huge opportunities as well as numerous challenges in regulating the corporations to prevent various human rights abuses occurring during their business operations. The instances of human rights abuses occurring in the business corporations include lack of ensuring labour rights, forced labour, child labour, land grabbing, illegal violence in the communities, poor maintenance of safety and healthy work environment, polluted environment and destruction of its resources. Therefore, the roles and power obligations of companies in their operations are widely considered for ten years to acquire favourable employment conditions. The concept of business and human rights (BHR) has been developed over the years with the introduction of "soft legislation", meaning non-binding guidelines and principles, proposed by international organizations, for example, the United Nations (UN), the OECD-the International Organization for Standardization (OECD), ISO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) for provinces to be recognized in the management of international corporations or TNCs and other entities (OBE) The international organizations have laid down broad, non-binding and voluntary corporate practices and standards to be followed by the TNCs to create positive impact on economic and social context.  However, in 1988, the United Nations (UN) made its first attempt to create a non-voluntary code of conduct for the BHR called Norms on the Responsories of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises on Human Rights ('UN Norms') , in order to regulate the TNCs which had been failed upon opposition and non-adoption by the business enterprises. However, the UN has made further efforts to regulate TNCs by introducing the Global Compact Human Rights Program as part of corporate ethics and by issuing the United Nations Guidelines on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011 based on the three-pillar structure of the 'Protect Framework,' Respect and Remedy 'in this regard The UNGP was unanimously approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2011 which mandated that corporate rights obligations in corporations be included and that international standards be set as a global standard for protection against human rights abuses by business organizations. The UNGP was the first official document to be unanimously adopted and involved all stakeholders with a high level of awareness and willingness to listen to BHR matters and led to the promotion of appropriate guidelines and reports. However, there have been obstacles to the implementation of UNGPs, especially in the area of access to remedies and justice for victims of human rights abuses in the business world. In addition, increased commitment is needed by countries to do so by developing National Action Plans (NAPs) and strengthening ties effectively rather than simply declaring that they understand BHR. The UNGPs were the first ever legitimate document that was unanimously adopted and engaged all the stakeholders with enhanced awareness and willingness towards listening to the BHR issues and led to spurring development of the relevant guides and reports. However, still there have been impediments in the implementation of the UNGPs especially regarding access to the remedies and justice to the victims of abuses of human rights in the business activities. Furthermore, an increased willingness is required by the states in such implementation by developing National Action Plans (NAPs) and enforcing the obligations effectively rather than simply declaration of their understanding of BHR. The above-mentioned guidelines of the UN, OECD, ISO and ILO constitute ‘soft law’ framework regarding BHR that consists of characteristics including non-binding obligations which state to co-operate through legal processes as a form of remedy to the adverse human rights impacts. However, these instruments cannot deal particularly with the breach of human rights obligations nor contain specific provisions on accountability, supervisory and oversight requirements. Therefore, despite having some hard law characteristics by setting out specific principles on controlling corporate conduct, the above-mentioned OECD and ILO guidelines and UNGPs on BHR fail to provide remedies to the consequences of the breach of human rights and therefore lack in demonstrating corporate responsibility in this context. Hence, there has been an urge for the inclusion of hard law, i.e. binding legal instrument, in the BHR context in order to effectively deal with non-compliance issues by the TNCs. However, the debate of whether the soft law remains an essential tool for governance of the corporations in the context of BHR has been ongoing due to the reasons of lack of consensus between the states regarding the status of corporations under international law that determine the extent of such corporate responsibility and political will in accepting it. Thus in order to determine the regulatory framework in the BHR issues for corporations, the requirement of analyzing the advantages, disadvantages, risks, threats and practical challenges of implementing corporate human rights responsibility and enforcing the obligations in a comprehensive manner by balancing the soft law and hard law approaches is a major concern in recent times. This issue has been furthered with the question of necessity of creating a binding UN Treaty to reach consensus at the international level in implementing the corporate responsibility that also extends to certain domestic initiatives by the states to legalize BHR obligations in their own jurisdictions. However, the argument that soft law remains an important tool in corporate governance in the context of the BHR has been ongoing for reasons of non-international agreement on corporate status under international law that determines the extent to which such an obligation to co-operate in the adoption is therefore determined. Organizational BHR, the need for positive, negative analysis, risks, threats and practical challenges to implement corporate rights responsibility and enforce obligations broadly by measuring flexible law and strict legal mechanisms has become a major problem in recent times. This problem has been further exacerbated by the question of the need to establish a UN Commitment Agreement in order to reach an international level agreement on the fulfilment of corporate obligations which also extends to specific provincial plans to authorize BHR obligations in their territories. This endorsement by the UNHRC was an indirect consequence of the efforts made by the UN since 2005 with its Special Representative Professor John Ruggie followed by 2008 U.N. Framework on Business and Human Rights that led to the remarkable adoption of the 2011 UNGPs. In view of this, the urgent need for a BHR Agreement was reached in September 2013 by the Ecuadorian team at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said it needed to move forward with a legal obligation to regulate TNCs and ensure justice and remedy for human rights abuses. in the conduct of business entities. On June 26, 2014, the UNHRC approved. The historic struggle for the UN binding Treaty includes discussions and considerations in the past five years during 2015-2019 in the sessions of the OEIGWG that led to the creation of elements of the legally binding treaty, a Zero draft and first and second versions of revised draft  were published respectively in September 2017, July 2018, October 2019 and August 2020. These instruments were the result of negotiations to develop a binding treaty on BHR when the debates have been persistent in this regard with questions as to how the treaty would deliver to all the stakeholders, complement the soft laws including UNGPs and the content, scope and concerns of the drafts to be created. 2.	Effectiveness of the BHR framework in the implementation of the corporate human rights responsibilities This chapter on research provides insights into the study by evaluating the research topic through various literature. This part of the study helps to evaluate the current management structure in the implementation of corporate human rights responsibilities and to address the overall gaps required for the analysis of innovation. The study finds the chapter through three key areas identified by research questions such as assessing the effectiveness of the current Business and Human Rights (PHR) framework in the implementation of corporate human rights responsibilities; Identifying the justifications for creating a binding agreement in the BHR and the practical challenges and implications of implementing a binding agreement in the BHR. Finally, identify future opportunities moving towards a bond agreement in the BHR. 2.1.	Previous BHR Initiatives Since the 1970s, there have been efforts and initiatives to adopt international binding agreements and regulate multinational corporations (MNCs) through OECD guidelines for multinational corporations, which were eventually adopted by the then UN. In the code of conduct governing the operations of MNCs. The above-mentioned OECD guidelines were incorporated into the 1976 OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinationals, which contained recommendations on a wide range of policies for MNCs and business responsible business, starting with consumer interests, science and technology, competition and taxation. These guidelines have been further revised in 2011 which is a template of recommendations by governments to the TNCs and the only multilaterally agreed comprehensive code where those governments have committed to promote BHR. Regarding the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, Ethics on employment, human rights, the environment and disclosure of information. These guidelines were further revised in 2011, which is a template for governments' recommendations to TNCs, and the only comprehensive code of diversity that those governments have promised to promote PHR. . In addition to the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, it was further argued that these guidelines have though specifically recommended that the corporations have to be legit in solving the problem. It is argued that they have the characteristics associated with strict law due to the setting of precise standards of conduct for organizations. In addition to the effectiveness of the OECD guidelines, it has been suggested that these guidelines specifically co-operate with formal processes in resolving aggravated human rights abuses caused by organizations, but they are not defined as 'formal procedures'. Furthermore, the guidelines provided their interpretation to third-party review bodies in individual countries labelled as National Contact Points, which would facilitate enforcement but would not impose any legal consequences on companies for violating these guidelines. Therefore, it has been decided that the OECD guidelines are pure soft law despite some difficult legal characteristics. Therefore, it is concluded that the OECD guidelines despite having some hard law characteristics are rather pure soft law. The next attempt of creating a BHR regime had been in 1980s, when the negotiations failed due to the increasing competition by the developing countries in attracting foreign investment to get rid of the debts resulted from the oil-price crisis of 1979 and consequently, the UN Commission on TNCs was abolished. The next attempt to create a PHR regime was in the 1980s, when negotiations failed due to increasing competition from developing countries to attract foreign investment to get out of debt as a result of the 1979 oil price crisis. The TNC Commission was abolished. The second failed attempt was made in 2003, when the UN recognized the liability of transnational corporations and other business entities ('UN rules') for human rights as the first non-binding tool. The security related draft was prepared by the sub-commission. And the promotion of human rights. It follows the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of companies to provide protection to consumers and to address issues related to the prevention of corruption and environmental damage. Therefore, the UN. Although it is not recognized by the Human Rights Commission, the UN, the creation of the regulations is the first attempt to impose the promotion and protection of human rights by TNCs other than the states under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This follows the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of the companies in order to provide protection to the consumers and address issues on prevention of corruption and environmental harm. . In 2000, the UN. Global Compact is another internationally recognized standard, referred to as the "World's Largest Voluntary Corporate Sustainability Initiative", which aims to encourage businesses to align their strategies and operations with human rights, labor and environmental rights and anti-corruption rules. , And make such efforts in support of social goals. UN Convention on Standards of Corporate Behavior Global Compact has issued ten ambiguous policies, which, in the absence of monitoring and third-party oversight rules, are inaccurate in describing such standards and consequences of violation, which constitutes pure soft law in the BHR framework. The UN Global Compact has provided ten vague principles on standards for corporate conduct and thus lack of precision in describing such standards and consequences. In 2005, the then UN. The Commission on Human Rights called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint a special envoy for human rights and the TNC and other business organizations, in response to which John Rocky, a political scientist and professor at Harvard University, was appointed. For such purpose. . In 2008, after extensive research and consultation with a number of stakeholders on the fundamentals of the framework, Rocky proposed a three-member framework in the BHR entitled "Protection, Respect and Resolution": i) The State has a legal duty to protect individuals against human rights violations by third parties, including business Within their jurisdiction to protect them; ii) the responsibility of the business to respect human rights; And iii) the need for more effective access to solutions for victims of human rights abuses: States have obligations to provide judicial and non-judicial solutions, while business has a responsibility to provide non-judicial solutions. Professor Rocky has identified governance gaps created by globalization as the root causes of contemporary problems related to PHR. He has also identified international organizations such as the ILO and O in his studies. He has also found in his studies that the international organizations such as ILO and OECD have given recognition that the business is entitled to the responsibility of respecting human rights and joining the UN Global Compact. Overall, this framework of Ruggie was successful to the extent that his mandate mentioned in the core principles of the three-part framework was extrapolated with a margin of about 4 years by the UN Human Rights Council until 2011. After major corporate failures in recent years, the issue of corporate human rights obligations is being emphasized. This affects the impact of the business activities of international organizations (TNCs) on aspects of human rights law. Globalization has provided many opportunities and challenges for corporate governance to prevent various human rights violations that occur during their business hours. Conditions of human rights abuses in business enterprises include uncertainty about workers' rights, coercion, child labour, land grabbing, illegal community violence, unsafe environmental care and a healthy working environment, polluted environment and the destruction of its resources. Therefore, the roles and power obligations of companies in their operations are widely considered for ten years to acquire human rights in particular, in the sense of business. . The concept of business and human rights (BHR) has been developed over the years with the introduction of "soft legislation", meaning non-binding guidelines and principles, proposed by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Organization for Standardization (OECD). ISO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) for provinces to be recognized in the management of international corporations or TNCs and other entities (OBE) . International organizations have set wide-ranging, non-binding and voluntary company norms and standards to be followed by TNCs to create a positive economic and social impact. . However, in 1988, the United Nations (UN) made its first attempt to create a non-voluntary code of conduct for the BHR called Norms on the Responsriers of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises on Human Rights ('UN Norms')., in order to control TNCs that have failed in the opposition and rejection of business entities. Human rights in business context and the responsibility to be taken by the enterprises in cases of causes relating to “adverse human rights impact” and risks of abuse of such rights by them and further discussed that how the structure, size, ownership and operational context is responsible in cases of human rights violations. The guiding principles also suggest the aspects of preventing and mitigating the adverse human rights impact by the enterprises and take such necessary steps in this regard. However, the study of the European Parliament on the implementation of the UNGPs on BHR found that there are certain challenges in such case if the principles are implemented by the states, such as, lack of awareness about these principles along with broader human rights and business issues among both government officials and also other stakeholder parties. Such lack of understanding and awareness by the states and the stakeholders were also identified by the UN Secretary General in its mandate and report in 2011 and 2012 which led to the creation of global fund by the states to enhance the capacity of the stakeholders in order to implement the UNGPs and has been supported by the business enterprises as well. In addition, another key challenge in such implementation of the UNGPs is the lack of financial and human resources, which are essential in order to develop relevant policies, national action plans and regulations, to ensure their effective implementation, enforcement, monitoring and prosecution. Other major factors that prevent effective implementation of the UNGPs by the states include: lack of co-ordination by the government departments; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc. 2.2.	Status of current BHR regime Currently, there is no comprehensive and legally binding and enforceable UN treaty on imposing corporate human rights responsibilities upon the TNCs, except the ongoing attempts of the Zero draft and the revised draft versions created in the past three years since 2017 which aim for enforcing such treaty in near future. It has been deemed that the zero draft provides crucial provisions in ensuring corporate accountability by upholding the requirement for the businesses to adopt human rights due diligence policies and procedures. Thus, it has been also stated that the governments of the states have to support such draft treaty on imposing binding obligations upon the business organizations in this regard. Apart from that until such initiatives of draft zero or revised treaty, the historical context referred the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 which has provided such provisions that covered even business organizations as organs of society which have to promote respect for the human rights and freedoms and to secure their universal and effective recognition by progressive means. However, most of the international laws including the ILO treaties impose indirect obligations upon states to take action and reasonable measures within their jurisdiction against violations of human rights by the businesses. Moreover, the nature of the treaties and their ratification is a significant matter for consideration as such international human rights treaties are neither binding upon all the states nor universally ratified. In addition, although these general human rights treaties impose obligations on States, they lack particularity regarding the scope of the duties that the states have to impose on business organizations and companies.

2.3.	Limitations of the existing framework The first vibrant limitation of the currently existing BHR regime towards binding treaty is lack of enough legally binding and enforceable UN treaty on imposing corporate human rights responsibilities upon the TNCs. The only outstanding binding treaty is the zero draft, which aims at enforcing such treaty in near future. Another limitation is the lack of compliance to the laws regarding the international business and human rights. Diligently, the compliance may occur with or without consideration to the human rights. For this reason, it is hoped for Europe to adopt due diligence laws mandatory on human rights for well international corporation. Lastly, insufficiency witnessed by some of the national laws by certain countries that fails to protect human rights against some companies remains a great threat to the international community in terms of business and human rights as per the TNCs.

3.	Justification of creating a binding treaty The need for a binding treaty is justified due to reasons relating to the limitations of the previous and existing BHR framework which include : i)	lacking clarity regarding the availability, characteristics and length of corporate human rights responsibilities under international human rights laws and relevant conventions and treaties; ii)	states being the principal abusers of business and human rights by being too corrupt and having no power to protect people from influential business corporations; iii)	absolving of liability against human rights violations by the parent companies for commission of such abuses by subsidiaries on the basis of norms separating legal personality and limited liability; iv)	obstacles and legal barriers experienced by the victims in getting access to justice which include excessive litigation costs and doctrine of forum non convenience. Regarding such need for treaty, David Bilchitz argued to impose binding obligations on corporations, in order to clarify relevant norms and further that the rights to businesses in international economic transactions and investment treaties do not always violate human rights and to facilitate victims’ access to remedies. Bilchitz have provided arguments for and against a treaty stating that drafting a treaty would take time, but in the meantime, other existing non-binding instruments including the UNGPs are there and has concluded that as the global economic power which is shifting to the South, so if the BRICS countries support a treaty the developed countries in the North could not go against it and as a result if the TNCs are obliged to meet the provisions of the treaty, they would become an international standard for the corporations. As a result of understanding the need for a binding treaty, summing up the timeline since which the attempts were made of creating a UN international standard binding treaty include : i)	a unanimous adoption of the UNGPs by the UNHRC in June 2011; ii)	the Ecuador’s call for a new binding treaty for negotiation in September 2013; iii)	the Ecuador's resolution on such a binding treaty adopted in the UNHRC and another resolution placed by Norway confirming the significance of the UNGPs and asking for an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a binding treaty was unanimously adopted in June 2014 ; iv)	the first session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG) was provided with the task of drafting the new binding treaty in October 2015; v)	the OEIGWG's second session held on October 2016; vi)	the publication of a guiding document called “Elements” by the Chair of the OEIGWG for a draft binding treaty and a third session held on October 2017; vii)	the endorsement of the “Elements” by the UNHRC and it providing authorization to the OEIGWG to carry on its work on March 2018; viii)	the first Zero draft of the treaty in June 2018; ix)	the fourth OEIGWG session held in October 2018; x)	the publication of the revised draft on 16th July 2019 by the Chair of the OEIGWG; xi)	the fifth session of the OEIGWG in February-March 2020 and xii)	finally, a second revised draft published on 06.08.2020 under the chairmanship of the OEIGWG. Regarding the above-mentioned attempts as a result of justification of creating a binding treaty, the support of the civil society organizations on the proposal of the Ecuador in 2013 to negotiate an UN treaty was huge compared to the moderate level support provided by the UNHRC. Moreover, even the Ecuador's resolution of June 2014 received only 20 supporting votes in addition to 14 opposing votes by mostly the industrialized and corporate members and 13 abstention votes by mostly the Latin American members. It was argued that although the mandate provided by the resolution of 2014 is to 'elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises', it does not define TNCs and rather only defines 'other business enterprises' (OBEs), where this proposal takes into account all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operations but does not apply to local businesses registered under relevant domestic law. In addition, the second resolution by Norway in June 2014 was supported by 22 other countries from all regions. Consequently, placing it in a unique condition as it requested that the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights to prepare a report considering the merits and demerits of a legally binding instrument and further asked the High Commissioner for Human Rights to begin consultation with stakeholders considering the range of legal and practical aspects to improve access to remedy for victims of violations of BHR. Furthermore, the first two sessions of the OEIGWG were related to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument according to the UNHRC mandate. Whereas, the publication by the OEIGWG Chair entitled 'Elements for the draft legally binding instrument' were later debated in the third OEIGWG session in 2017. Therefore, it has been argued that the UNGPs provide recognition that there are limitations in access to effective remedies for victims of corporations’ failure to respect human rights, but still do not provide an enforcement mechanism and as a result its non-binding nature and lack of third party oversight, makes it a form of soft law rather than hard law. Consequently, considering the effectiveness of all the previous BHR initiatives in determining the necessity of creating a legally binding obligatory instrument or treaty. It has been argued that none of these attempts could be concluded as a hard law initiative and hence justifies such necessity (Necessity of hard law initiatives), although the OECD guidelines possess certain characteristics that could lead to the hard law end of the continuum, without requiring such adoption mandatory binding obligations. Moreover, considering the limitations of both soft law and hard law approaches, it was concluded that there was dissatisfaction regarding the ineffective implementation of the UNGPs, despite its higher appreciation during its adoption that ultimately led to the steps and attempts of drafting an international binding treaty. The voluntary and non-binding character of the UNGPs was deemed to be the limitations of the UNGPs which have been also recognized by the governments and civil society organizations. It was further argued that the UNGPs have been around for some years only and thus their impact has to be assessed with more time. Furthermore, creating a binding treaty was initially said to cause huge complexity of the business and human rights issues by many experts as it has to include all the human rights of different kinds of businesses including both national and transnational; having inherent risks within such framework and taking long time to conclude with negotiations and thus rather a soft-law approach through the UNGPs were preferred. 4.	Debates on the binding treaty, practical challenges in its enforcement and future possibilities Discussions on the creation of a bond agreement began in June 2014 with international initiatives as several states began the difficult task of completing a bond PHR tool with the following impetus: i) administrative gaps will be covered where states do not implement human rights protection; ii) The responsibilities of the companies will be set up from a central source; iii) UNGPs can be transformed into binding obligations that ensure that all organizations, regardless of their location, adhere to the same human rights standards and increase access to effective solutions; iv) The Working Group chaired talks to achieve the broader range of human rights that companies can be responsible for. However, it has been argued since then that creating a binding legal framework for PHR issues poses some risks related to state approval and a lack of global support for the binding tool. But many states did not support the proposed agreement or participate in the negotiations, without the support of these states, the largest TNCs would not have come under the agreement and therefore left such administrative gaps. Therefore, it is not clear whether efforts to create such a bond PHR tool without the support of those key states will significantly improve the protection of human rights victims in the hands of organizations. The main challenge for draftsmen of draft binding agreements is to consider their wide range of specific issues, which must be taken into account in making decisions with the necessary consensus. During the 2015 and 2016 sessions of the OEIGWG, the most discussed issues of the day were the proposed binding agreement on business and human rights liability: i) the obligation of companies to diligently demonstrate due to human rights as stated in the ‘Elements’ and the imposition on State Parties to compel TNCs and OBEs with their subsidiaries; ii) the expression regulating the legal liability of TNCs and OBEs, according to the 'elements' relating to administrative, civil and criminal aspects of human rights violations by their activities; iii) The concept of broad jurisdiction was another issue because the victims had to have access to effective solutions in the country where the violation took place or where the parent company was located or where the treaty states were expected to impose such an obligation. Guarantee for such solutions; iv) The 'elements' have proposed the International Court of Justice for Transnational Institutions and Human Rights, as well as the special chambers of existing international and regional courts, and to develop an international settlement mechanism and a non-judicial mechanism, ie to monitor initiatives taken by state parties and to communicate reports and communications. To receive; v) Provides 'elements' to facilitate mutual legal assistance to enhance judicial cooperation and to recognize relevant decisions of the court. There were also significant problems with the recognition of PHR-related states' extraterrestrial obligations. The UNGPs said that under international human rights law, states generally do not need to regulate additional regional activities of businesses within their jurisdiction and are generally prohibited from doing so in accordance with international law. Allowing the territory of one state to cause damage to the territory of another state. Despite this, some human rights treaty organizations have suggested that states take action to prevent abuse in other states by businesses within their territories. Therefore, in view of such issues, the ‘elements’ provided that the future binding agreement should ensure that the obligations of state parties to protect human rights do not extend beyond their territorial boundaries. In those times, the highest form of debate was whether the proposed agreement would be limited to businesses engaged in transnational activities or would also include local companies. The EU supported the idea of including all businesses in the agreement, otherwise it would be inappropriate and an evil compared to local competitors who violate human rights. Whereas the 'Elements' have vividly short challenged the physique and appearance of the union to the businesses involving transnational operations and contrasted with the EU's position arguing that validates drafting a treaty specifically applicable to businesses with transnational operations and excluding the local companies. This was argued with the issue that such a binding treaty is to be drafted in order to complete the international gap in law on parent enterprises liability determination beyond the government’s limits where the abuses of human rights were committed. This was further argued with the matter that the TNCs are in the most beneficial position by being able to avoid responsibility due to their transnational nature and so limiting the scope of the then proposed or draft treaty would not be discriminatory with the local companies. Other relevant debate regarding the 'Elements' was that it provided for a wider view considering every dimension recognizing human rights as covered the treaties and international conventions. Hence, At the same time, the 'elements' restrict the nature and purpose of the agreement to businesses engaged in transnational activities and contradict the EU position. At the same time, the 'elements' restrict the nature and purpose of the agreement to businesses engaged in transnational activities and contradict the EU position. It was argued that such a binding agreement should be prepared to fill a gap in international law in determining the liability of parent companies beyond the jurisdiction of the state where the human rights violations took place. TNCs are in a very advantageous position of avoiding liability due to their transnational nature, so restricting the scope of the proposed or draft agreement of the day does not discriminate with local companies. The other relevant discussion regarding ‘elements’ was that it provided a broader approach considering that all internationally recognized human rights are included in all human rights treaties and international conventions. Then, at the third OEIGWG session in 2017, the EU expressed its strong opposition to the drafting of a binding agreement by UN representatives, which would not be of little practical importance and would cover up their inability to uphold human rights by accusing states of using it. Regarding the nature and effectiveness of the ILO Tripartite Declaration, although it imposes reporting obligations on governments, it does not provide for the consequences of breach of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. As a consequence, it is argued that although the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. Among all the UN guidelines (General Principles and Global Compact), OECD, ISO and ILO, the European Union and many other member states have kept the UNGP at the forefront of recognizing the relationship between human rights and business and this has been demonstrated. by establishing national programs in accordance with these principles in order to operate effectively. According to a study by the European Parliament in 2017, UNGPs were used to some extent as OECD guidelines were in line with UNGP; however, there are still many cases of human rights abuses due to a lack of key mechanisms in ensuring the implementation of the UNGP and its non-compliant nature. In the end, the international business community did not support the "elements" because they appeared to be a major step backwards and jeopardized the important consensus reached by the UNGPs, their spirit and their words were undermined. Therefore, the “components” are contradictory and bizarre in PHR bonds; The agreement and the proposed Option Act were made, which raised serious concerns for international and regional businesses, but it was argued that they did not provide a better foundation for the potential BHR framework. Significant times in human rights Taken as a whole, the law governing the implementation of the Zero Pact Agreement and the Neglected Selection Act are not legally binding; Compare established standards and rules; It does not work for the purpose of promoting inclusive economic growth and investment; He is at risk of being prosecuted for politically motivated crimes; And - in fact - not the power to help all victims of human rights abuses. In addition, entrepreneurs are deeply concerned about the process that has led to the publication of the Standardization Agreement and the Draft Option Protocol. It also says it wants to make a significant contribution to business dialogue and human rights. However, it is worrying that no real effort has been made to ensure a solid, transparent and open process that fully embraces the expertise and experience of all stakeholders. The way in which UNGPs are created reflects the highest number of meaningful private sector involvement. The business community encourages all IGWG stakeholders to improve their negotiations with the business in addressing complex human rights issues. Entrepreneurs vehemently reject the Draft Optimization Agreement and the Draft Option Protocol. I do not believe that these documents make a significant contribution to the commercial and human rights field; Instead, they underestimate the significant progress made under the UNGP. In addition, the process followed by IGWG to date does not give business confidence that the program will provide a reliable and effective solution to these complex human rights issues. Giving credit to companies with international functions, not those with domestic jobs or SOEs, even if a few steps have been taken from the perpetrator and there is no control over that organization or its ability to influence operations, undermines the effective and full UNGP approach. The Proposed Agreement and the Draft Optional Protocol also ignore the key factors in determining the company's credit rights, namely the three ways in which a company could be harmed; The size of; Systematic human rights issues not only in the organization; Circumstances in which provinces do not meet international obligations to protect human rights and enforce important levels of employment. In addition, by increasing the use of foreign power, the Zero Draft Agreement and Draft Option Protocol ignores the monarchy and ignores human rights abuses in many provinces, while at the same time looking at international businesses to fill those human rights gaps. . In doing so, the Zero Draft Agreement and the Draft Options Protocol will exclude most victims from reaching a decision that will block significant foreign investment, and that will allow failed states to operate as human rights holders and send money to certain businesses. None of this will meet the challenges of globalization and help revitalize all economic growth and social development. Entrepreneurs want to emphasize that there are many concerns about the Planning Agreement, the Draft Options Protocol and the IGWG process do not undermine their commitment to efficiency and respect for human rights. Identifying and responding to human rights risks, including impact assessments, shareholder engagement, foreign investment and increased exposure, has become an integral part of voluntary organization activities and companies are constantly improving their efforts in this regard. Similarly, companies do not want to do business directly or indirectly with suppliers or entrepreneurs who cause human rights violations. Entrepreneurs do not support the Zero Non-Compliance Agreement or Draft Option Protocol. Both of these books undermine the business system and human rights by undermining the UNGP and the failure of countries to meet existing obligations. Companies create the risk of choosing to “cut and run” from high-risk countries, postponing investments in key projects to achieve growth and the SDGs without entering other high-risk markets. Companies must follow strict policies such as the police in their overseas supply companies to ensure that their business partners act responsibly. Worryingly, this approach will continue to undermine the role of the state, and some of its traditional functions and powers - such as testing and charging fines for business partners - should be shifted to global trade. All of these unintended consequences will significantly undermine the growth and partnership model presented under STGs. 5.	Research Methodology and Approach This chapter of the study stipulates the procedure and approach used in extracting and tabling of the results for this research. It expounds on the research design, research method and data collection process in details for more valid and reliable results. This research falls into the category of practical research as it requires an analysis of the development and implementation of the corporate human rights responsibilities in the soft law and hard law framework throughout the years and assess its impact on the business corporations dealing with the practical challenges and debates concerning the creation of a binding treaty in the BHR context. However, the research questions also require descriptive research since it describes the ongoing debates on current BHR governance framework and also assess the significance of the balance between the soft law and hard law approaches. It is also an exploratory research as it explores the practical challenges and future benefits and opportunities in creating a binding treaty and justify it in implementing the corporate human rights responsibilities effectively. As per research design approach, it is a qualitative research method due to the subjective assessment of the current corporate human rights framework, to understand the underlying challenges, standards and practices that prevail until today in order to draw the findings in favour of the binding treaty. Moreover, an analytical approach is required here to apply legal reasoning, to interpret laws, theories and practices of business and human rights and further make a critical assessment of the necessity, practical challenges and future possibilities of the binding treaty in implementing corporate human rights responsibilities. Overall, a socio-legal approach is to be adopted to understand the effect of a binding treaty on BHR upon attitude, behaviour and organizations of corporate world and vice-versa in providing remedy to the victims of the society. This study takes a qualitative approach with insights from practical research, descriptive research, explanatory, analytical and socio-legal knowledge to vividly expound on the law issues regarding the international human rights relative to the topic. Consequently, the study deployed a systematic literature review, a method which satisfied all the aspects demanded by the approach and design. Using the method, various literature sources were gathered through different searches with different key words related to the topic. Key words used during the search included corporate human rights, implementation of the corporate human rights, corporate human rights responsibility, binding treaty, challenges, future opportunities, BHR Initiatives, previous BHR initiatives, current BHR initiatives, limitations, consequences, impacts, and advancements. In this study, the literature materials consulted themselves acted in the capacity of findings to the research questions. As a result, the analysis and evaluation of the collected literatures provided the qualitative analysis designed by the study. 6.	Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion 6.1.	Findings After thin analysis of the previous, current and future BHR initiatives, the study identified a few challenges and initiative opportunities that hinders the human rights responsibility internationally. The BHR initiatives majorly looked into an improved ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. Furthermore, the study identified that implementation of corporate human rights responsibility through a binding treaty in the international community is yet to be achieved only when the corporate partners sojourned to the understandings of the binding treaty initiatives put in place. For this reason, some of the challenges facing the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as identified by the study grossed to competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. On the other hand, the study identified possibilities of future opportunities of implementation of human rights responsibilities through binding treaty initiatives internationally. According to the research, this is only possibly only when the limitations of the previous and current initiatives are surpassed. Besides, the possibility of the future implementation of the BHRs initiatives on human rights responsibility lies on the gap of a binding treaty initiative currently in place. Today, the only binding treaty initiative available is the zero draft and its subsequent drafts developed about three years ago. As a result, the need for a binding treaty initiative is justified by this gap of insufficiencies of available initiatives to enact such guidelines. Competition of the developing countries for foreign investment opportunities The study table one of the challenges hindering the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as the competition of the developing countries for foreign investment opportunities in their land. For this reason, there is breach to the guidelines outlined by the OECD annexed to the 1976 OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, that consisted of recommendations on wider range of principles starting from consumer interests, science and technology, competition and taxation to the responsible business conduct for MNCs and business ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. For instance, despite the due diligence of the law, some countries play a disparity in supporting human rights concerning the key elements outlined by the 1976 OECD declaration. Considerably, there has been several incidences of breach of these codes of conduct of employees in different multinational enterprises and transnational corporations, but with little consideration by the concerned state due to fear of losing the foreign investor in that specific developing country. Some of the common abuses of the human rights by the multinational enterprises includes lack of employment ethics, over taxation, unpleasant environment and restricted freedom. In the pictures captioned below, the first picture in figure 1 shows child abuse in a mining company while the second picture captioned as figure 2 shows employees demonstrating on poor mining environment. According to the OECD of 1976, human rights covers the protection of humans against the poor work environment and child labour. However, since the developing countries needs the companies from the developed countries (the foreign investors), none will stand out strongly to condemn such acts against human rights responsibility as outlined by the 1976 OECD principles. Failing of the UN norms on the RTCs and OBEs In 2003, the first draft of the Rules on Human Rights ('UN Rules') on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business entities was adopted by the UN Convention on Security and Development. Came to light as an unbound tool by the subcommittee. Human rights. This came in consideration to the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of the companies in order to provide protection to the consumers and address issues on prevention of corruption and environmental harm. It considered the business and human rights obligations and responsibilities of companies to provide protection to consumers and to address issues related to the prevention of corruption and environmental damage. This precedes the failure of global compact policies in 2000, which has been referred to as the “largest voluntary enterprise sustainability initiative in the world”. The main responsibility of the global compact policy lies in achieving human rights, labour and environmental rights and anti-corruption rules, and takes such attempts to support social goals, which ultimately failed. The UN has failed by the rules of the Ten Unclear Policies on Standards for Corporate Behaviour. Compact is universally recognized, and thus there is inaccuracy in describing such standards and consequences as they are violated due to the lack of monitoring and third-party supervision rules. Law in the BHR Framework. . As a result of its failure, the UN the commission was forced to appoint a special envoy on human rights and the TNC and other businesses, including John Rocky, a professor at Harvard University. The expert came up with three resolutions in the BHR; Protection, Settlement and Respect through the following perspectives: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. Despite these measures, Professor Rookie conducted further research in 2011 and proposed the UNGP with the aim of mitigating the aforementioned governance gaps and ensuring better access to solutions. Victims soon. Therefore, the first 1-10 policies in the UNGPs are related to the state duty to protect; Policies 11-24 address the issue of business liability to be respected and Policies 25-31 addressing the necessities for availing victims with opportunity to legit solutions to human rights abuses. Due to such failures, the study table some of the reasons that appeared to be the source of the failures of such policies. These insufficiencies included and not limited to; lack of co-ordination by the government departments ; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc.; lack of awareness about these principles along; and lack of financial and human resources. As a result, the UNGPs are non-binding soft-law instrument in authoritative nature and of global standard, with no new obligations but reflecting international law standards in ensuring human rights in the context of business. Oblique ISO guidelines Unclear ISO guidelines is one of the factors challenging the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives. However, the (ISO) 26000 in 2010 for Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility has failed to particular address most of the underlying challenges over the matter of human rights in the international community. For instance, the (ISO) 26000 in 2010 for Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility is another internationally recognized standard which provided guidance on how business organizations can operate with social responsibility in socially acceptable manner. As a result, an international organization for standardization appeared incompetent to address most of the vibrant issues concerning the implementation of human rights responsibilities through binding treaty initiatives. Even though the policy provides an opportunity to report obligations on the government, the ILO Tripartite Declaration fails to report consequences of breach of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. Finally, the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. Insufficiency in International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines Implementation of human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives is tabled to have met its backwash through development of insufficient ILO guidelines. Through this attempts to meeting the goals of BHRs, the International Labour Organization adopted a “Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy” in 1977 with a revised version in 2017, which is another international standard in offering guidelines to TNCs, states’, bosses and servants organizations on labour and employment issues, training, work and life conditions and industrial relations and based on principles under international labour conventions and recommendations. Regarding the nature and effectiveness of the ILO Tripartite Declaration, although it imposes reporting obligations on governments, it does not provide for the impact’s defiance of its provisions and also does not specify any enforcement mechanism. As a consequence, it is argued that although the Declaration contains fewer hard law features compared to that of the OECD Guidelines, it could not be still said to be purely soft law. As described, implementation of human right responsibility through a binding treaty has faced several challenges on the initiatives put forward to the process. Development of business and human rights initiatives can be dated back since 1970s to date, with little progress in the transnational and multinational corporations. Despite of the attempts by the UN agencies to formulate policies against abuse of human right and mistreatment of human being by corporate states, achieving a responsible state of human right in the international community remains in its staggering condition due to several challenges outlined above. The study availed the evidences of attempts of policy formulations towards upholding human rights in the transnational and multinational enterprises. Such policies evidenced in the study included and not limited to; the BHR initiatives, OECD principles, the UN policies. Finally, some issues showing future prospects for completing the process; (i) the obligation to diligently demonstrate due to human rights as stated in the Institutions 'Elements' and the obligation on State Parties to compel TNCs and OBEs with their subsidiaries; (ii) the expression regulating the legal liability of TNCs and OBEs, according to the 'elements' relating to administrative, civil and criminal aspects of human rights violations by their activities;. States guarantee such solutions. Experts in monitoring the efforts of state parties, publishing reports and obtaining communications; Finally, (v) provide 'elements' to facilitate mutual legal assistance to enhance judicial cooperation and to recognize the relevant decisions of the court. 6.2.	Recommendations The study has identified several challenges hoovering the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives. These challenges must be solved for the process to reach its fulfilment. Starting from the BHR initiatives, some of the challenges that must be solved included competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN traditions towards RTCs and OBEs as per the law; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. Although, greater solutions lie within the solution of the gross challenges including, but not limited to; ; lack of co-ordination by the government departments; fear of restrain of foreign investment; lack of good governance, existence of corruption and political limitations imposed by foreign governments; opposition by business enterprises and governments groups; lack of international companies involved in human rights abuses and lack of coherence between international instruments of UN, OECD, etc.; lack of awareness about these principles along; and lack of financial and human resources. Some of the recommendations put forward by the study to solve the identified gaps included ; (i)	Gap: clarification challenge regarding the existence, nature, and extent of corporate human rights responsibilities. Recommendation: the existing governance gaps would be covered where the States do not enforce human rights protections. (ii)	Gap: states being the principal abusers of business and human rights by being too corrupt and having no power to protect people from influential business corporations. Recommendation: the responsibilities of corporations would be set out from a central source. (iii)	Gap: absolving of liability against human rights violations by the parent companies for commission of such abuses by subsidiaries on the basis of doctrines of separate legal personality and limited liability. Recommendation: the UNGPs could be converted into binding obligations ensuring that all the corporations, irrespective of their locations, stick to the same set of human rights standards and increasing access to effective remedies. (iv)	Gap: obstacles and legal barriers experienced by the victims in getting access to justice which include excessive litigation costs and doctrine of forum non convenience. Recommendation: the working group headed for the negotiations achieving a liable international corporation. The earlier challenges affecting the BHR initiatives could be solved by the John’s recommendations. Following extensive research and consultation with a number of stakeholder stakeholders on the key principles of this framework, the BHR structure entitled "Protection, Respect and Resolution" has three components: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. 6.3.	Conclusion To conclude, the research established that there are a lot of things still missing for the complete implementation of the human right responsibility through binding treaty for a safer transnational corporation. Most of the world agencies aiming at peaceful coexistence among the international community such as the UN agencies, OECD, ISO, and ILO have attempted to ensure a safer world community with due diligence of human rights through formulation of various initiatives. Beginning with the PHR initiatives, the OECD guidelines in some of the efforts to ensure the implementation of human rights through the Binding Agreement, the UN Including Global Compact and the then UN Human Rights Commission. The study identified that the only existing initiative is its latest drafts related to the implementation of human rights through zero draft and binding contract initiatives. The (UN), (OECD), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) States should follow suit in managing .NC and other business entities (OPEs). As a result of its failure, the UN the commission was forced to appoint a special envoy on human rights and the TNC and other businesses, including John Rocky, a professor at Harvard University. The expert came up with three resolutions in the BHR; Protection, Settlement and Respect through the following perspectives: (i) the State has a legal duty to protect her people from abuse, including trade Protecting them; ii) the duties of enterprises to protect clients; And iii) transparency. Professor Ruggy has identified the personality some challenges as causes of contemporary problems involving PHR. ILO and the OECD recognize that the UN has a duty to keep human rights. He also found in his studies that it belongs to the Global Compact. Despite these measures, Professor Rookie conducted further research in 2011 and proposed the UNGP with the aim of mitigating the aforementioned governance gaps and ensuring better access to solutions. Victims soon. Therefore, the first 1-10 policies in the UNGPs are related to the state duty to protect; Policies 11-24 address the issue of business liability to be respected and Policies 25-31 addressing the necessities for availing victims with opportunity to legit solutions to human rights abuses. Hence, after thin analysis of the previous, current and future BHR initiatives, the study identified a few challenges and initiative opportunities that hinders the human rights responsibility internationally. The BHR initiatives majorly looked into an improved ethics on employment, human rights, environment and disclosure of information. Furthermore, the study identified that implementation of corporate human rights responsibility through a binding treaty in the international community is yet to be achieved only when the corporate partners sojourned to the understandings of the binding treaty initiatives put in place. For this reason, some of the challenges facing the implementation of the human rights responsibility through binding treaty initiatives as identified by the study grossed to competition of developing countries for investment opportunities by foreign countries-possibly the developed countries; failing of the UN norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights; Ineffectiveness of the UNGPs initiatives; oblique ISO guidelines; Insufficiency in ILO guidelines; and lack of central mechanism in ensuring the implementation of the UNGPs and their non-binding nature. The findings table herein are legible for validity and reliability verification since the study takes a qualitative approach with insights from practical research, descriptive research, explanatory, analytical and socio-legal knowledge to vividly expound on the law issues regarding the international human rights relative to the topic. Consequently, the study deployed a systematic literature review, a method which satisfied all the aspects demanded by the approach and design. Using the method, various literature sources were gathered through different searches with different key words related to the topic. Key words used during the search included corporate human rights, implementation of the corporate human rights, corporate human rights responsibility, binding treaty, challenges, future opportunities, BHR Initiatives, previous BHR initiatives, current BHR initiatives, limitations, consequences, impacts, and advancements.

Bibliography Alvarez JE, ‘Are Corporations “Subjects” of International Law?’ (2011) 9 SantaClaraJIntlL 1 Bilchitz D., 'The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty' (2016) 1 BHRJ 203 Buhmann, Karin, Björn Fasterling, and Aurora Voiculescu. "Business & Human Rights Research Methods." (2018): 323-332. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Debate the Treaty’ (Business and Human Rights, 2020)  accessed 30 June 2020 Cassell D., “Building a Treaty on Business and Human Rights: Context and Contours”, (2019) 41(2) Human Rights Quarterly, 497-508 Chowdhury B., ‘Balancing soft and hard law for Business and Human rights’ (2018) 67 ICLQ 961–986 Directorate-General for External Policies: Policy Department, ‘Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (European Union, February 2017)  accessed 01 July 2020 Elise Groulx Diggs and Mitt Regan and Beatrice Parance, 'Business and Human Rights as a Galaxy of Norms' (2019) 50 Geo J Int'l L 309 Hess, David. "The Transparency Trap: Non‐Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights." American Business Law Journal 56, no. 1 (2019): 5-53. Human Rights Council, Resolution 26/9 on the Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, Geneva, 26th July 2014 International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1978) 17 ILM 422 International Organisation for Standardization, ‘Guidance on social responsibility’ ISO 26000:2010(en)  accessed 29 June 2020 Lavanga V. Wijekoon, Michael G. Congiu, and Stefan J. Marculewicz, ‘United Nations Takes Another Step in Developing a Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ (Littler Insight, 2020) <https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/united-nations-takes-another-step-developing-treaty-business-and-human> accessed 01 July 2020 Letnar Cernic J and Carrillo-Santarelli N (eds), The Future of Business and Human Rights: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for a UN Treaty (Intersentia 2018) Martens J., and Seitz K., ‘The Struggle for a UN Treaty Towards global regulation on human rights and business’ (Global Policy Forum, August 2016) <https://rosalux-ba.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/un_treaty_online18.pdf> accessed 01 July 2020 McBearty S., ‘The Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty: Four Challenges and an Opportunity’ (2016) 57 HarvardILJ <https://harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/McBrearty_0615.pdf> accessed 30 June 2020 Methven O’Brien, Claire, and Jolyon Ford. "Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalisation to Transnational Governance and Back Again." Nordic Journal of Human Rights 37, no. 3 (2019): 216-233. Methven O’Brien, Claire, and Jolyon Ford. "Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalisation to Transnational Governance and Back Again." Nordic Journal of Human Rights 37, no. 3 (2019): 216-233. O’Brien C.M. and Ford J., ‘Business and Human Rights: From Domestic Institutionalization to Transnational Governance and Back Again’ (2019), 37 (3) NJHR 216-233 OECD, ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ (OECD Publishing, 2011) <http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf> accessed 29 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Elements for the draft legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights’ (OHCHR, 29 September 2017) HRC Res. A/HRC/RES/26/9 <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/LegallyBindingInstrumentTNCs_OBEs.pdf> accessed 30 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises: Zero draft’ (OHCHR, 16 July 2018) <https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/DraftLBI.pdf> accessed 30 June 2020 OEIGWG, ‘Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises: Revised Draft’ (OHCHR, 16 July 2019) <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/OEIGWG_RevisedDraft_LBI.pdf> accessed 30 June 2020 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Related Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (2004) (E/CN.4/DEC/2004/116) OHCHR, The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide (United Nations, 2012) Rasche A., ‘” A Necessary Supplement” – What the United Nations Global Compact Is and Is Not’ (2009) 48(4) Business Society 511 Roos S.R., ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ in: Idowu S.O., Capaldi N., Zu L., Gupta A.D. (eds), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility (Springer 2013) <https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-28036-8_746#howtocite> accessed 01 July 2020 Sixto F. O., ‘Business and Human Rights: A study on the implications of the proposed binding treaty’ (LL.M dissertation, University of Essex 2015) https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Business%20and%20Human%20Rights.%20A%20study%20on%20the%20implications%20of%20the%20proposed%20binding%20treaty.pdf> accessed 29 June 2020 UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR/PUB/11/04(2011) UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR/PUB/11/04(2011) UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (2003) (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2) United Nations Global Compact, ‘Navigating the Future of Business and Human Rights: Good Practice Examples’ (New York, 2019) <https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/publications%2FNavigating+the+Future+of+BHR.pdf> accessed 01 July 2020 Wettstein, Florian, Elisa Giuliani, Grazia D. Santangelo, and Günter K. Stahl. "International business and human rights: A research agenda." Journal of World Business 54, no. 1 (2019): 54-65. Zamfir I., ‘Towards a binding international treaty on business and human rights’ (European Parliament, April 2018) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/620229/EPRS_BRI(2018)620229_EN.pdf> accessed 29 June 2020