ARGUMENT:

Having an internationally binding instrument is necessary for the further development of

Business Responsibility in Human Rights. Pursuing Policy Coherence Treaties is the superior
option to achieve the objective.
KEY Considerations:
Treaty Options: The wide variety of forms and content a treaty could take;
Templates: Forms of treaties that enjoy broad support in international law, which could serve as
templates for a treaty on business and human rights; and
Cross-cutting issues: Issues of international law and policy that drafters may need to address,
regardless of the form and content of a treaty (companies covered; applicable rights; law
governing civil damages suits; geographic scope of State duties; parent company
responsibilities; and whether to impose duties only on States or directly on business).

SPEAKER 1--POLICY COHERENCE TREATIES:

 Why the need for internationally binding treaties?

 Why pursuing Policy Coherence Treaties best addresses the need?
Ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you to advocate for why POLICY COHERENCE
TREATIES is the superior option to successfully create legally-binding treaties for the
development of business responsibility in Human Rights.
I argue that _______. The next speaker will argue that__________. The final speaker
summarizes our proposition that Policy Coherence Treaties are the superior option
because__________.
A. WHY THE NEED FOR INTERNATIONALLY BINDING TREATIES?
I begin by addressing the need for binding treaties for business responsibility in human
rights.
In the prefatory clause of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims the
Declaration as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind,
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, …”1. Business organizations, on the other hand, are included in
those “organs of society”, called on not only to respect, but to promote responsibility for and to
protect human rights.
(UDHR IS NOT LAW)
However, this clause of the General Assembly Declaration is not law. What then are
other options for legal obligations to ensure, at the minimum, respect for human rights?

1 Supra, note 4.
 As professor Douglas Cassel observes,
Most of these obligations are indirect: international law obligates States to use
their domestic laws and institutions to protect the human rights of persons
within their jurisdiction, including from violations by third parties. States must
require third parties, including business, to refrain from harming people. In
some instances, State obligations to safeguard human rights also obligate
States to require business to take positive steps to protect rights, whether by
properly training private security forces, providing safe factories and
workplaces, or paying workers a minimum wage.”2
“…In addition, International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) treaties require
States to legislate and enforce minimum wages, maximum hours, safe
working conditions, freedom of association, and so on. While these laws are
formally directed at States, the real objects of regulation, albeit indirectly, are
business corporations”3
(NOT ALL EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES ARE BINDING, BOTH TO STATES AND
TO COMPANIES)
However, notwithstanding existing imposition of obligations, these are not enough to ensure
business respect for human rights, at the minimum. Not to mention, there also exists lack of
specificity as to the scope of duties states must impose on companies. Not all these general
human rights international laws, nor the ILO treaties are universally ratified. Some states are
therefore not bound by the obligations.

 For example, the USA alone has not ratified fundamental human rights treaties such as
the Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control
(UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol.4
 “In addition, states may lack the will or capacity to carry out even those specific
commitments by which they have agreed to be bound. Many of these treaties lack any
mechanism to require a State to live up to its commitments, outside of public reporting of
State performance to a United Nations or relevant international body. For all these
reasons, business may avoid accountability because States have not fully implemented
their own duties with respect to human rights. Transnational businesses may also have
different obligations depending on where they operate – at times working in States that
do not have the will or ability to fulfill treaty commitments.”5

2 Supra, Note 4, at 12. (citing Jean-Francois Akandji-Combe, Positive Obligations under the European
Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, No. 7, Council of Europe (2007), especially pp.
14-16; Eric Engle, Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights (Drittwirkung), 5 HANSE LAW REV. 165
(2009).)
3 Supra, Note 4, at 13.
4 Global Policy Forum. US Position on International Treaties. Available at:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/26665-us-position-on-international-treaties.html.
5 Supra, Note 4, at 13.
The objective therefore for an international treaty is at the minimum, to address these
gaps. A legally binding agreement on states and companies needs to work towards
common objectives that are both internationally acceptable and can be consistent with
domestic policy, if it desires to be implemented well.
B. WHY PURSUING POLICY COHERENCE TREATIES BEST ADDRESSES THE NEED?
To answer why Policy Coherence Treaties best achieves the objective, I must necessarily
define what Policy Coherence is.
Policy Coherence is defined by the OECD as the systematic promotion of mutually
reinforcing policy actions across government departments and agencies creating synergies
towards achieving the agreed objectives6
UN Guiding Principle 8 calls on States to ensure that their institutions that “shape business
practices are aware of and observe the State’s human rights obligations when fulfilling their
respective mandates, …”.7 Additionally, UN Guiding Principle 9 provides that “States should
maintain adequate domestic policy space to meet their human rights obligations when pursuing
business-related policy objectives with other States or business enterprises, for instance
through investment treaties or contracts.”8.
This is not to say that all national policies must be reviewed to conform to a one-size fits all
approach. Rather, treaties may be formulated to focus on a specific standard within a specific
area of Business and Human Rights concern.

 For example, in regard to corporate law, to what extent ought parent companies to
be responsible for the human rights impacts of their subsidiaries, including their
subsidiaries abroad? In regard to public procurement, States might pursue
agreement on common human rights standards and due diligence processes.9
Consider Weakness:
 It would be a tall order for a global treaty to attempt a comprehensive review and reform
of national legislation and regulation in all of these areas. But agreement might be
pursued in particular areas.10

6 Trinity College Dublin. Exploring links between EU agricultural policy and world poverty: What is Policy
Coherence?. Available at: https://www.tcd.ie/iiis/policycoherence/concept/what-is.php (last accessed May
12, 2016)
7 Supra, Note 4, at 35.
8 Id.
9 Id. (citing Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and

other business enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/28, 28 April 2015, pars. 40-42)

10
White Paper