A/HRC/37/67 disproportionate effect that human rights abuses had on women and girls, there was a call for a gendered approach to the treaty. 31. Some delegations and NGOs also discussed the need for the instrument to take account of conflict situations and provide special protection in cases of occupation and other types of armed conflict. 32. While several NGOs called for the instrument to clearly assert the primacy of human rights over trade and investment agreements, one delegation highlighted that there was no hierarchy among norms in international law, with the exception of jus cogens norms. 33. There was wide consensus among most delegations and civil society that, going forward, the process would benefit from a transparent, inclusive, and constructive dialogue involving multiple stakeholders. Some delegations and business organizations expressed concern that the business community had not been given sufficient opportunities to engage meaningfully in the current session. C. Debate: reflections on the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant international, regional and national frameworks 34. One regional organization expressed its appreciation for including the current session in the programme of work. It recalled how in the last six years, there had been numerous positive initiatives aimed at implementing the Guiding Principles. Since the working group process could be expected to take some time to conclude, it was suggested that States and business should take further steps to implement the Guiding Principles at the time in order to prevent abuses and ensure protection for victims. 35. A number of delegations expressed their support for the Guiding Principles, as a unanimously endorsed authoritative global standard. Additionally, delegations discussed different initiatives implementing the Guiding Principles, in particular national action plans. Support was expressed for the accountability and remedy project, the Working Group on business and human rights, as well as the annual Forum on Business and Human Rights. 36. Some delegations noted that the Guiding Principles were not purely voluntary since they discussed the substantive obligations of States under international human rights law. Other delegations and one NGO did not agree that the Guiding Principles could guarantee the protection of human rights. IV. Panel discussions A. Panel I. General framework 37. The first panellist noted that the counterweight to the impunity of the transnational corporations was the product of a strong grass-roots process. Consumers needed access to information to influence business habits; thus, there should be transparent human rights due diligence processes throughout supply chains. She noted that the European Parliament had mandated its representative to maintain a constructive dialogue with the working group because it believed that there needed to be a legally binding instrument regulating business and human rights. The panellist invited the regional organization to engage constructively in accordance with the common position of the European Parliament with respect to that process. 38. The second panellist offered a development perspective to the discussion. He argued that globalization distinctly disadvantaged developing countries, and that large financial 8