A/HRC/31/50 52. One delegation asked whether it would be appropriate to include a reference to the primacy of human rights over international investment instruments. Some of the panellists noted that it was necessary to clarify the hierarchy between investment treaties and human rights treaties, and that interpretation of human rights should dictate the terms under which the investment instruments are adopted. 53. Most NGOs agreed upon the recognition of the principle of hierarchy of human rights above other fields of international law, particularly commercial rules. Some NGOs considered that an instrument should address relevant principles of human rights, such as the primary responsibility of States, the obligation to protect and guarantee human rights, the domestic and extraterritorial responsibility of businesses, the application of the precautionary principles and the principle of international cooperation. 54. Many NGOs highlighted that the protection of human rights defenders and the creation of a safe and enabling environment for their work should be a key principle at the core of the instrument. Likewise, they were of the view that the working group process must guarantee the full and safe participation of human rights defenders through practical mechanisms, the interspersing of NGO statements with those of other actors, a continued openness to the participation and webcasting of entities from outside the Economic and Social Council, national and regional consultations prior to sessions, and an institutional mechanism to prevent and respond to reprisals against defenders for seeking to engage with the process. C. Panel III. Coverage of the instrument: transnational corporations and other business enterprises — concepts and legal nature in international law 55. One panellist noted that, from a macroeconomic viewpoint, the size of corporations did matter, that half of the 100 leading economies were transnational corporations and that one quarter to one third of all economies were companies. There had been a fundamental shift in the balance of power between such corporations and States, driven in particular by core factors such as the rise of new technologies that facilitate management of companies across borders and the deregulation of many economic activities. The panellist also stressed that the extent of control that these companies can exert on States, civil society, employees and international organizations was a key element to consider. Finally, the panellist mentioned that, currently, there was an absence of countervailing power to channel the corporate space of influence. 56. One panellist noted that traditional international law scholars had argued that international law was only applicable between States, but that there were many examples throughout history where non-State actors had been subject to international law, such as the Modern Slavery Act of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where the law was applied throughout the supply chain of corporations with the aim of stamping out slavery. 57. One panellist noted the need to define the objective of the instrument, on the assumption that the footnote in resolution 26/9 suggested that the instrument should aim to address situations where transnational corporations and other entities with transnational activities were capable of evading their human rights responsibilities on jurisdictional grounds. On the contrary, it would be virtually impossible to cover and control domestic enterprises in the fulfilment of human rights, owing to the huge number of such enterprises and because they would be subject to domestic systems. Furthermore, the panellist referred to the issue of definition and argued that there were examples of international agreements that did not include specific definitions. Some approaches for defining of the term 11