A/HRC/37/67 “other intergovernmental instruments” beyond human rights treaties, since those instruments were neither binding nor universal. 55. Other delegations disagreed that all human rights should be included due to the lack of universality of many human rights. 56. Regarding the provision covering acts subjected to the instrument’s application, some delegations and NGOs were concerned that its scope was unclear and suggested that the phrase “business activity that has a transnational character” be defined to ensure effectiveness of the instrument. It was noted that if liability was involved, defining the phrase was mandatory. While a delegation and panellist disagreed, it was suggested that guidance could be drawn from international instruments covering transnational crime, without borrowing definitions. 57. A regional organization indicated that, in addition to the lack of definition, there were several questions as to whether that provision was aimed at the establishment of causation, a contribution to an abuse or a linkage. They also noted the unclear language, such as “indirectly controlled”. 58. A regional organization raised questions relating to the acts to be covered by a future instrument, including whether the provision discriminated between foreign and national companies if national companies were categorically excluded from the scope. In response, a panellist disagreed that that would constitute discrimination since the provision focused on conduct, not nationality. Another delegation recalled that when it came to national enterprises, they were covered by national legislation, but the same did not apply to transnational corporations, justifying the need to address such corporations. The main issue regarded human rights abuses resulting from transnational corporate activity, access to justice for victims and proper reparation. That was meant to protect human rights, and drawing a distinction was not discrimination as it was clearly recognized in several countries. According to that delegation, challenges existed in all type of companies, but the growing size of value chains had resulted in the failure to respect human rights and a lack of accountability. Therefore, a more effective reference could be linked to corporate activity rather than to the company itself. 59. Concerning which actors should be subject to the instrument, some argued that only States would be the proper subjects. Another delegation was open to the provision covering organizations of regional economic integration but questioned why those were not mentioned elsewhere in the document. Furthermore, there was concern that those organizations would be difficult to regulate in practice given the relationship between individual States and such institutions. 60. Several delegations considered that transnational corporations and other business enterprises should be subject to the instrument but not national companies. One delegation suggested that the focus should be on business activity in general, regardless of its transnational nature. Other delegations noted that such companies were subject to national laws and need not be included; in that regard, they emphasized that negotiations must go on guided by the mandate of resolution 26/9. One regional organization pointed out that the national laws of the countries they operated in regulated transnational corporations. It was highlighted that national enterprises should be included as they could also be responsible for human rights abuses. There was a call for the inclusion of online corporations in the scope of application. Several delegations emphasized that the discussions about the scope should continue within the mandate of resolution 26/9. 61. Some delegations voiced concern over the provision subjecting natural persons to the instrument, noting that was unnecessary since international criminal law covered individuals. Other delegations were of the opinion that individuals should be subject to the instrument. An NGO emphasized the importance of tackling the question of the definition 11