A/HRC/40/48 was a national or domiciliary of the forum State. An NGO suggested referring to universal jurisdiction. 80. Some delegations voiced concern about article 5 (2) (subparagraphs (c) and (d) in particular), as they considered it too broad. There were several calls to refine the language, with one delegation suggesting looking to private international law for clarity regarding the concept of “domicile”. While there were no concerns expressed about subparagraphs (a) and (b), several delegations and some organizations found subparagraph (c) problematic, as there was no accepted definition of “substantial business interest”. There was similar unease with subparagraph (d). In particular, clarity was sought with respect to the meaning of “instrumentality” and “or the like”. It was suggested that those provisions be deleted or revised. Some delegations and NGOs nonetheless requested that article 5 (2) (d) be strengthened to more clearly address issues relating to corporate structures and separate legal personality. They insisted that the article permit jurisdiction over parent companies and other entities with established commercial relationships with the entity causing harm. 81. Although one delegation suggested deleting article 5 (3) (in its view, the provision covered a procedural issue governed by national law), other delegations welcomed it. Several delegations took issue with the clause permitting actions to be taken on behalf of victims without their consent, if justified. In their view, such a provision could be subject to abuse, and it would be inappropriate to bring claims without people’s consent. The ChairRapporteur said that their consent would be unnecessary only in exceptional circumstances, such as where serious violations made the presence of a victim impossible. One panellist insisted that the clause be retained, as it was necessary for effectuating class action suits (for which there could be elaborate procedural systems ensuring that people could opt out if they did not want to be part of an action). The delegation of one State suggested removing references to actions brought by groups of individuals, since its legal system did not permit class actions. 82. There were calls to address additional issues in article 5. Some delegations and many NGOs insisted that forum non conveniens be prohibited. Several NGOs also suggested including a provision on forum necessitatis. One delegation requested that special attention be paid to situations of conflict. Several delegations said that the article or the draft should address the issue of conflict of jurisdictions. They expressed concern about the consequences of the broad approach to jurisdiction taken in article 5, in particular relating to forum shopping and parallel proceedings. Neither article 5 nor article 7 provided rules for the resolution of disputes between competing jurisdictions. One delegation proposed that the court first seized of a matter should have priority over it. A panellist agreed that the issue should be addressed but warned that the proposed solution could be subject to abuse. G. Articles 1, 14 and 15 83. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that article 1, the preamble, was based on the major instruments and principles of international human rights law. He emphasized some of its paragraphs. Article 14 was derived from provisions of the major human rights treaties. Article 15 contained certain final provisions, particularly those of a procedural nature. 84. Much of the discussion centred on the preamble. Several delegations and some observer organizations suggested taking the preamble out of the operative part of the text. There were also several calls to make the text more precise. One delegation suggested revising the wording of the second preambular clause to read “in case of harm decisive for the enjoyment of their human rights”. Several delegations suggested adding a reference to international humanitarian law in the third and eighth preambular clauses, whereas another proposed deleting the reference to “international human rights law”, since it was subsumed under “international law”. One delegation argued that the third preambular clause added little to the text and should be deleted. Another delegation welcomed the formulation in the fourth preambular clause that stated “or otherwise under their jurisdiction or control”. A delegation and a business organization suggested changing the word “shall” in the sixth preambular clause to “should” to bring it more closely into line with the Guiding Principles. However, another delegation and several NGOs preferred the text as it was and insisted that there be 15