A/HRC/42/35 and some felt that point could be decided later. One participant suggested that the criteria and subcriteria should help inform the process. 81. In concluding the session, panellists took divergent opinions on whether it was better to decide that the instrument would be a standard treaty or a framework convention at the beginning of the process or as negotiations unfolded. Panellists agreed that the new instrument should go beyond the Declaration on the Right to Development, both to add more specific norms and to expand consensus. Mr. De Feyter considered that the main challenge was to combine the features of a human rights treaty with inter-State relations to ensure that duty bearers were held accountable. Mr. Mbengue explained that, while 50 ratifications for entry into force was a standard, negotiators could decide differently based on strategic considerations. Ms. Techane recommended avoiding language that implied that men were the norm and women were the “other” human beings (the exception and the vulnerable), such as the common phrase “including women”. 82. At the next meeting, the content and scope of a legally binding instrument on the right to development were discussed. The meeting started with presentations from Mihir Kanade, Academic Director of the University for Peace; Carlos López, Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights for the International Commission of Jurists; and Diana Desierto, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Notre Dame and Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the Philippine Judicial Academy. 83. Mr. Kanade addressed the formulation of the right to development and the nature of obligations of States parties to a legally binding instrument. The right to development was an inalienable and self-standing human right, while also an amalgamation, meaning that a violation of any human right automatically constituted a violation of the right to development. Participation, contribution and enjoyment underpinned the sense of the right to development. A proposed reformulation of the right to development was: “States, on behalf of their peoples, have the right, as well as the duty, to formulate appropriate national development policies”. When acting collectively in global and regional partnerships, States had the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to development. The provisions of a legally binding instrument could include references to civil development and sustainable development, which were not included in the Declaration. 84. Mr. Lopez spoke about the advantages and disadvantages of imposing obligations on business enterprises and investors in relation to human rights and the right to development. A convention on the right to development could provide a multilateral framework to support countries’ reform efforts, strengthen their bargaining position and balance investment protection regimes. Obligations for investors could include compliance with national law, disclosure of information, respect for human rights and labour rights in accordance with national law and social and environmental impact assessments. The advantages of including those obligations in the legally binding instrument could be to preserve national policy space, make investments consistent and conducive to national development efforts and afford better protection and relief to affected populations. Possible disadvantages included a heightened level of obligations being seen as discouraging, erosion by a low level of ratification or implementation, and required domestic efforts to enact, legislate and enforce laws. 85. Ms. Desierto presented possible compliance paradigms and frameworks for a draft legally binding instrument. Human rights compliance was often equated with enforcement, when in reality it concerned the degree to which State behaviour conformed to what an international agreement prescribed or proscribed. State compliance was determined by strategic cooperation objectives, self-interests, reciprocity, reputational concerns, a sense of identity created by shared norms of international behaviour, and a sense of legitimacy and fairness. Five factors determined the acceptable level of human rights compliance: efficiency of rules, State interests, norms, ambiguity versus clarity of rules, and capabilities and capacities. Institutional design options included: reporting procedures and periodic review; fact-finding and reporting procedures in existing national or regional bodies; a common but differentiated responsibility model or verifiable public registry of commitments; dialogic or review functions vested in a treaty based body; integrated right to development reporting to analyse intersectional factors constraining human rights and 16