A/HRC/34/47 B. Panel II. Primary obligations of States, including extraterritorial obligations related to transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to protecting human rights Subtheme 1. Implementing international human rights obligations: examples of national legislation and international instruments applicable to transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights 37. The first panellist pointed to the paradox of some States claiming that human rights interfered with their sovereignty while remaining willing to sign investment treaties that protected the rights of transnational corporations and directly interfered with their sovereignty. A binding treaty must: address the regulatory shortfall with respect to the protection of human rights and codify and develop the responsibility of States to protect human rights; build capacity and help States to adopt effective legislative and administrative measures to establish the criminal and civil liability of corporations responsible for human rights abuses; and provide standards to protect public policy in bilateral investment treaties. 38. The second panellist drew attention to the well-developed international human rights regime and recalled the obligation of States to protect, respect and fulfil human rights, including in relation to the activities of third parties, such as businesses, while simultaneously noting the significant limitations to States’ compliance with such a regime. Any binding instrument should be developed in a way that addresses the causes of current enforcement gaps. 39. The third panellist referred to relevant international standards that might be useful in developing the content of an international instrument, citing, for example, the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in particular principles 8, 9, 25, 26, 29, 36 and 37. 40. The fourth panellist noted that infringement of human rights by transnational corporations happened in the context of an overall architecture of impunity. A binding instrument could change that state of play, remedy the asymmetry between the rights and obligations of transnational corporations, allow for the monitoring of human rights compliance of transnational corporations by home and host States as well as by citizens, and extend the obligations of such corporations in relation to contracting with suppliers. There would be a need for an international court to enforce the treaty, as well as for extraterritorial obligations and universal jurisdictional mechanisms. 41. One delegation noted that States were expected to uphold human rights both at home and abroad and advocated for the implementation of the Guiding Principles. 42. Several delegations recalled the primary obligation of States to protect human rights, including in relation to transnational corporations. Regional courts had acknowledged that corporate abuses could lead to States violating their obligations to exercise due diligence. A binding instrument would allow both home and host States to protect human rights and redress violations committed by transnational corporations. 43. Examples were given of domestic law that required companies to accept monitoring by Government and members of the public, for example in the areas of labour, environmental law and consumer protection. It was recommended that countries should make human rights a key factor when considering international investment. 44. One delegation cited the need to agree on clear standards to prevent transnational corporations from avoiding extraterritorial obligations and turning to international arbitration to protect their interests. Another delegation observed that the extraterritorial dimension could be dealt with as per the practice of treaty bodies, which had stated that 9