A/HRC/43/55 precision in the title of the article than the title used in the previous draft (“Jurisdiction”). It was broadly agreed that article 7 could lead to courts asserting jurisdiction over actions taking place extraterritorially, although there was significant disagreement over the desirability of that. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations welcomed the greater choice of forums for potential claimants, and argued that victims should have greater agency over where their claims should be adjudicated. However, some delegations noted that that could lead to conflicts of jurisdiction and suggested that the legally binding instrument clarify how to address competing claims of jurisdiction. Other delegations and business organizations voiced concern over an expansive view of jurisdiction and argued that it would be inappropriate to allow claimants to forum shop. In their view, permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction in an expansive way could violate the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity. 80. Many delegations and non-governmental organizations proposed expanding article 7 to include forum necessitatis (particularly for situations of conflict), and there were also calls to prohibit the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Many non-governmental organizations requested clearer language regarding jurisdiction with respect to harm in supply chains. Furthermore, some delegations and non-governmental organizations proposed adding references to universal jurisdiction, competent regional courts and the creation of an international court. 81. With respect to article 7 (2), the question was asked whether the reference to “natural” person was needed; one delegation suggested amending the language of the provision if the reference were to stay in the legally binding instrument. Several delegations called for clarification over what constituted “substantial business interests” in article 7 (2) (d). 82. While some delegations appreciated the inclusion of an article on statute of limitations and called for it to be strengthened, others considered the wording of article 8 to be problematic. Many delegations sought clarification, in article 8 (1), of the meaning of “all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law which constitute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”. They argued that the provision would be difficult to apply without more guidance. One delegation argued that statutes of limitations were already not applicable to a wider range of offences than those referenced in article 8 (1), and was concerned that that provision could restrict the current state of the law. The question was asked whether the article applied only to criminal cases. Two delegations recommended deleting the reference to “international humanitarian law”. 83. Some delegations and organizations considered article 8 (2) to be unclear, particularly the reference to a “reasonable” period of time. At least one delegation rejected the notion that statutes of limitations should be removed for offences that were less serious than the most serious crimes. Some delegations proposed ways to ensure a fairer conception or application of statutes of limitations, for instance, by making statutes of limitations longer for more serious abuses, taking into account the continuous nature of some offences, and tolling statutes of limitations for children, for those who could not have known of the harm earlier, and for some persons with disabilities. 84. Delegations requested clarification of and more precise language in article 9. At least two delegations called for a clear distinction to be made between civil and criminal actions, with one delegation arguing it would not be appropriate for article 9 to apply to criminal cases. Some delegations sought clarification as to when article 9 (2) would apply and who would make the determination as to the applicable law. At least one delegation and several non-governmental organizations suggested that victims should have the ability to choose the appropriate law. One delegation considered article 9 (2) (b) to be problematic, as it provided for too much uncertainty and arbitrariness, potentially contravening principles of due process. Additionally, one delegation recommended deleting article 9 (3), while another suggested amending the provision to replace “prejudge” with “preclude”. 14