A/HRC/36/36 working group to be mindful of the distinctions between the two types of companies. They also observed that the open-ended intergovernmental working group could examine national legislation so as to determine best practices and lessons learned. 15. Other delegations called for an international legally binding instrument that regulated the activities of private military and security companies, pursuant to international standards. They stated their concern regarding the current impunity of private military and security companies and referred to certain activities of such companies, for example detaining individuals and engaging in arms trafficking and mercenary behaviour, as the byproducts of outsourcing warfare to private entities. They said that private military and security companies were largely able to operate outside the constraints of legal supervision. They recognized the regulatory framework needed strengthening and highlighted legal issues surrounding jurisdiction. They observed that existing tools contained worthwhile pillars for action but were not a complete solution. They stated that in the absence of national legislation, or in the context of insufficient or ineffective legislation, the openended intergovernmental working group should draft a document to be submitted to the Council. 16. In the open-ended intergovernmental working group, there was an emerging consensus to work on the basis of the Chair-Rapporteur’s discussion document (see section III, above) and an acknowledgement that moving forward on the topic would be an important breakthrough in the work of the open-ended intergovernmental working group. The consensus had led delegations to work together to outline the possible next steps that the open-ended intergovernmental working group could take, which would be presented to the Council at its thirty-sixth session. 17. On 23 May 2017, delegations referred to a document that had been prepared during the first day of the sixth session in relation to which delegations had sought instructions from their Governments. Delegations wanted to agree on a mutually acceptable formulation of words so that the open-ended intergovernmental working group could offer conclusions and recommendations for the Council’s consideration. Delegates noted that the work of the open-ended intergovernmental working group was urgent as the end of its mandate was approaching and the Council needed time to consider and discuss the way forward. As agreed by the regional coordinators at their meeting held on 6 April 2017, the sixth session had been scheduled to conclude on 24 May 2017, which meant that the business of the open-ended intergovernmental working group needed to be concluded within three days, rather than five days, as had been the case for previous sessions. 18. Delegations reflected on the need to avoid conflict or a situation of stalemate at that stage, particularly in relation to the different views on the possible legal status of any document that could eventually be proposed by the open-ended intergovernmental working group. The Chair-Rapporteur urged delegations not to pre-empt the outcome of any future deliberations of the open-ended intergovernmental working group and avoid divisions among delegations on the question of whether an international regulatory framework would be legally binding or not. Delegations noted that the open-ended intergovernmental working group had decided, at that point, to freeze discussion of whether to recommend the creation of a legally binding instrument. “Constructive ambiguity” in the recommendations and conclusions was helpful in a context in which delegations held a range of differing views. 19. Delegations initially encountered difficulties in agreeing on a way forward and found the question of including references to existing relevant standards and tools, such as the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct, to be challenging. Some delegations held the view that inclusion of those references was essential as those were the only two documents that dealt specifically with private military and security companies. Other delegations said that such inclusion was not necessary as a catch-all paragraph could be drafted to reflect all the standards and tools prepared by the industry and other stakeholders without naming particular standards and tools. They felt uncomfortable referring to specific standards and tools that had not been universally drafted and accepted and were not part of the United Nations process. 7