A/HRC/40/48 (and elsewhere in the document) were changed to “alleged victims”, so as to ensure impartiality. 35. With respect to article 2, delegations debated the appropriate scope of the instrument, in particular with regard to the multiple references to “business activities of transnational character”. Several delegations and organizations reaffirmed their positions that the future instrument should apply to all companies without distinction, including national and Stateowned companies. Others contested that view, arguing that transnational corporations escaped regulation, and therefore should be the focus of the instrument. One delegation suggested that the matter could be resolved by focusing on the transnational nature of the activity rather than the nature of the business. Some delegations and many NGOs argued that the future instrument should establish direct obligations for transnational corporations and that the establishment of such obligations should be reflected in the instrument’s statement of purpose. 36. Several delegations called for greater precision in the wording of article 2. At least one delegation expressed the view that the provision in which human rights violations “in the context of” business activities were referred to was too vague for courts to apply. There was some concern about the use of the word “violations” in article 2 (1) (b), as some delegations and a business organization said that the term “abuses” – or “violations and abuses” – was more appropriate. It was also unclear what rights were covered in that provision. While several delegations welcomed the reference to international cooperation in 2 (1) (c), they wondered whether the draft was too comprehensive and suggested stating that one purpose of the instrument was to further international cooperation in matters relating to business activities. 37. Some delegations also suggested adding more to article 2 by including specific references to the Guiding Principles; the universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated nature of human rights; and the aims of bolstering domestic systems outlining international standards. Some NGOs requested an explicit reference to the primacy of human rights over trade and investment agreements. 38. While many delegations and NGOs signalled their appreciation of article 8 and its focus on victims, several delegations suggested abridging the article since much of it reiterated accepted norms of international law, and one suggested removing it altogether. In addition to calls to remove particular provisions (specifically article 8 (9–13)), there were calls to use language that was more accurate and more typical of a legal instrument. 39. With respect to article 8 (1), some delegations asked for more clarity regarding the definition of terms (e.g., “satisfaction”) and the entities that would be subject to the obligations in the article. Several delegations and a business organization voiced concern about the reference to “environmental remediation and ecological restoration” in article 8 (1) (b), noting that the terms were undefined, beyond the scope of the Guiding Principles and not within the remit of the working group. 40. Concern was also expressed about article 8 (2), since it could be read as authorizing extraterritorial jurisdiction (any discussion of which, in the view of those expressing concern, should be confined to article 5). One delegation requested that references to claims of groups be removed, as class actions were not permitted in the legal system of the State on behalf of which the representative of the delegation was speaking. 41. The representatives of two delegations criticized article 8 (3) for being too general and going beyond the intended scope of the future instrument. 42. Several NGOs stressed the importance of keeping article 8 (4), as it would have practical benefits for victims. 43. At least one delegation voiced concern about the vague terminology used in article 8 (5) (c), asking, in particular, what constituted “unnecessary” formalities, costs or delays. In its view, such vague terminology would lead to inconsistent application from one State to another and could render the provision meaningless. Two delegations raised strong objections to the clause in article 8 (5) (d) that provided that “in no case” would victims be required to reimburse the legal expenses of other parties to a claim. In their view, cost shifting was sometimes reasonable and necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits; thus, unjustified 8