A/HRC/37/67 21. A legally binding instrument would benefit victims of business-related human rights abuse by ensuring that companies were held accountable and that victims had access to prompt, effective and adequate remedies. Additionally, several delegations considered that such an instrument could be beneficial to business since it would create a level playing field. Uniform rules across jurisdictions would create legal certainty that business would appreciate. 22. Many delegations welcomed the elements document as being comprehensive, imposing obligations on transnational corporations and other business enterprises and contributing to victims’ access to justice. 23. One regional organization noted that the Chair-Rapporteur had opted for an allencompassing business and human rights negotiation, which, to their understanding, risked delaying progress. The delegation reserved their position on the document. 24. Several other delegations, as well as some business organizations, voiced concern about the elements document and regretted that it had been published three weeks before the session, allowing insufficient time to fully analyse and formulate official positions on the content. 25. One regional organization highlighted that the Guiding Principles recalled the existing obligations of States and that full implementation would probably react to the numerous cases documented by civil society and human rights defenders. 26. Some delegations thought that discussions on a legally binding instrument were premature. The Guiding Principles had been unanimously endorsed six years ago, and more time was needed to implement them. That process risked distracting attention away from such implementation. Other delegations agreed that primacy should be afforded to the Guiding Principles, but acknowledged that both the Guiding Principles and a legally binding instrument would have common objectives, and that a smart mix of voluntary and regulatory measures could be beneficial. 27. Many delegations agreed that States had the primary duty in protecting against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, and commended the elements document for reflecting that consensus. However, there was disagreement as to which business enterprises should be covered by a legally binding instrument. Several delegations expressed the view that national enterprises should be covered by the instrument, a view shared by many NGOs. Given the complex nature of corporate structures and the prevalence of nationally incorporated subsidiaries, those delegations feared that transnational corporations could find ways to fall outside the scope of an instrument regulating only transnational activities. While some delegations expressed the view that resolution 26/9 and the proposed elements permitted all business enterprises to be covered, other delegations rejected that as expanding the mandate in resolution 26/9 and noted that national laws already regulated national companies. 28. Delegations disagreed about the extent to which an instrument should permit the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. One delegation suggested that the instrument could incorporate extraterritorial obligations as laid out in the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, while another delegation rejected the idea that a legally binding instrument should permit States to exercise any form of extraterritorial jurisdiction. 29. Multiple delegations welcomed the fact that the elements document included provisions on international cooperation and capacity-building. The legally binding instrument should recognize the differing capacities of States and allow for assistance in order to ensure effective implementation of the treaty. 30. Some delegations and multiple NGOs insisted that the treaty ensure specific protections for certain vulnerable populations, such as indigenous peoples. Given the 7