A/HRC/33/40 in Services Agreement will not have apocalyptic consequences, bring world trade to a grinding halt or make FDI stop flowing. Henceforth trade must be made to benefit all in society, not only transnational corporations. Objectively there is no need for more free trade agreements, which hitherto have engendered advantages for few and disadvantages for many. A corporate takeover of State functions subverts States’ constitutional order and renders the fulfilment of human rights treaty obligations impossible. The world economy before free trade agreements and investor-State dispute settlement was certainly not business-unfriendly and it prospered through a healthy level of trade. 76. Thus, the debate is not whether there should be “free trade” or not. The benefits of responsible free trade are not questioned. Jacking up tariffs or returning to self-supporting communities with no commercial exchanges are not imaginable. The choice is not between “anything-goes” and totalitarianism. Trade with a conscience and democratic controls promotes development while respecting transparency and accountability. Governments, parliaments and courts are reminded of their responsibility to act to achieve a just international economic order in the sense of General Assembly resolution S-6/3201 of 1 May 1974. IX. A treaty making the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights binding 77. A democratic and equitable international order, as prescribed in the Charter of the United Nations, cannot be achieved through deregulation of trade, markets and financial services. While enterprises deserve protection from corrupt Governments and arbitrary expropriations, Governments also need protection from bribery and corruption by investors, speculators and transnational corporations. Individuals and peoples deserve protection and remedies against corporate abuse, land-grabbing and exploitation. 78. Observers have long decried the anomaly that while businesses have secured privileged protection of their investments and have created privatized arbitral tribunals to enforce their view of the “law”, there is no tribunal to protect Governments from business abuse and no protection of individual victims from the negative consequences of business activities. That normative asymmetry must be corrected. 79. Fifty years after the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there is still no enforcement mechanism. That reduces the credibility of United Nations institutions that continue adopting “Views”, declarations and resolutions, which many States and nonState actors ignore. While there are enforcement mechanisms for trade and other agreements in WTO and investor-State dispute settlement, it is imperative to create them globally for human rights treaties. The promise of the United Nations Global Compact and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights has not been realized, simply because self-regulation never works. 80. Binding obligations on investors and corporations must be incorporated into trade and investment agreements, and public courts must have jurisdiction to examine violations and impose sanctions on violators. Although the Guiding Principles are based on hard law, they are violated with impunity, as illustrated by bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements that encroach into the regulatory space of States. The treaty should provide for its own monitoring and enforcement body or be incorporated into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as optional protocols, stipulating that decisions are legally binding, as are those of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. States must enact civil and penal legislation concerning the human rights impacts of 18 GE.16-11938