The annual United Nations General Assembly, concluded in New York last month, brought together global leaders and diplomats to discuss pressing issues related to world politics, economics and human rights. While these discussions are vital, a critical question arises: how effective is the UN in shaping or influencing current global political systems?

Exploitation: The extraction by multinationals and transnationals of critical minerals, such as cobalt, in the DRC (above), has negative social and environmental impacts. Photo: Arlette Bashizi/Getty Images

For example, the UN has called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but rather than negotiating a ceasefire, Israel has escalated its military activities, expanding its reach into Lebanon and Iran. This starkly illustrates the limitations of the UN in preventing or mitigating severe human rights violations, which in this context amounts to genocide. Despite this, United Nations treaties still have an important role to play in protecting vulnerable people from exploitative transnational corporations.

A central component of the effort to address corporate impunity is the UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights. The treaty was first proposed in 2014 by Ecuador and South Africa, aiming to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights abuses across borders. Despite several drafts since its inception, the treaty has yet to be ratified.

In the lead-up to the 10th session of negotiations, civil society organisations, particularly from the Global South, have played a pivotal role in ensuring the treaty reflects the needs of vulnerable populations. In June 2024, the Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC), the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Lawyers for Human Rights hosted the fourth African regional Indaba on the binding treaty.

This gathering brought together affected communities, civil society groups, trade unions, academics, and states to discuss the treaty’s progress and prepare for the next round of negotiations at the UN, which is meant to take place in October of this year. The treaty’s purpose is to close the loopholes that allow multinational and transnational corporations to operate with impunity, often at the expense of local communities, ecosystems and workers’ rights, particularly in the Global South.

The treaty process, however, has faced numerous obstacles, the most recent being a sudden postponement of this year’s negotiations. Originally scheduled for 21 to 25 October 2024, the current Ecuadorian chair on 20 September 2024 postponed the talks to 16 to 20 December. This delay raises deeper questions about the commitment of the international community, especially wealthier nations, to ensuring a truly inclusive and just treaty process.

The binding treaty is one of several mechanisms that aim to curb corporate impunity. Two other significant frameworks play a role. The first is the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the second is the newly established UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, launched in September 2024.

Together, these instruments form a multi-layered approach to regulating transnational corporate behaviour, but each comes with its limitations and challenges. The Global South, particularly Africa, bears the brunt of corporate exploitation in critical mineral extraction. The AIDC, under the banner of the Southern African Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power, has mapped the effects of critical mineral extractivism. Of focus are the social and environmental impacts experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (cobalt), Madagascar (nickel), Mozambique (graphite), South Africa (manganese), Zambia (copper) and Zimbabwe (lithium). These countries are experiencing a new scramble for Africa by both the West and China looking to capitalise on the energy transition.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, represents a watershed moment in the global conversation about the responsibilities of states and business enterprises regarding human rights. The UN’s guiding principles rest on three foundational pillars: the state’s duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need for greater access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses. While the UN’s guiding principles have been instrumental in establishing a global standard for business conduct, fundamentally, they are voluntary.

This non-binding nature has led to inconsistent implementation, with many companies adopting a superficial approach to human rights due diligence. The focus on human rights and due diligence under the UN guiding principles has allowed some corporations to engage in “box-ticking” exercises rather than making substantive changes to their practices. This is particularly evident in regions where governance is weak and human rights abuses are prevalent. For example, in parts of Africa and Latin America, where mining activities are rapidly expanding, local communities often lack the power or resources to hold corporations accountable for environmental damage or social harm.

Moreover, the UN guiding principles have not provided the enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure compliance. This gap is glaring in situations where states are either unwilling or unable to regulate the activities of powerful corporations effectively, and this vulnerability then allows for further exploitation. As a result, communities continue to suffer from land grabs, pollution, and violations of labour rights, often with little recourse.

There has been a growing push for a legally binding international framework that holds corporations accountable for human rights violations. The proposed binding treaty, which has been under negotiation since 2014, seeks to create enforceable obligations for corporations to respect human rights. It is envisioned as a tool to address the gaps left by the UN guiding principles by introducing mandatory human rights due diligence, legal accountability for corporate abuses, and robust mechanisms for victims to seek justice.

But the path to achieving a binding treaty has been fraught with problems. Negotiations have been slow, and progress has been hampered by opposition from powerful states, particularly in the European Union, United States and Israel, where many transnational corporations are headquartered. These states have consistently opposed efforts to impose binding regulations on their corporate nationals, often citing concerns about the potential effect on business operations and competitiveness. The failure to advance the binding treaty perpetuates a system where the rights of people in resource-rich regions are subordinated to the interests of profit-driven enterprises.

In response to the growing recognition of the need for a just energy transition, the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals was established in 2024 to develop global principles to ensure that the extraction of critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies is conducted in a manner that advances justice, equity and human rights.

The panel is unique in its inclusivity, bringing together representatives from states, civil society organisations and affected communities, particularly from the Global South. Its objectives are ambitious: to reduce the demand for minerals in an equitable manner, protect the rights of indigenous peoples, and promote sustainable development. Despite its promising mandate, the panel faces significant problems. One of the key concerns is that, like the UN guiding principles, the panel’s recommendations are likely to be voluntary. This raises questions about their enforceability.

There is also the risk that the principles developed by the panel could be co-opted or undermined by powerful corporate interests. There is a real danger that the panel’s work could be diluted, leading to a continuation of business-as-usual practices that prioritise corporate profits over human rights and environmental sustainability.

Another challenge lies in the global power dynamics that shape these discussions. The interests of states in the Global North, which are heavily invested in the energy transition, often do not align with the needs and rights of communities in the Global South.

A key issue highlighted at the regional indaba is the importance of a “just transition from below” — ensuring that the shift toward greener energy does not replicate the injustices of the fossil fuel era. This requires centring the voices of local communities, addressing the harmful effects of green extractivism, and ensuring fair economic, social and environmental outcomes.

A truly just and equitable energy transition is one that questions the systems that created climate change and ensures that the cycle of extractivism in resource-rich regions is broken, allowing for dignity and rights for people and the planet and rules for corporations.

Charlize Tomaselli is a senior researcher at the Alternative Information and Development Centre in the Alternatives to Extractivism and Climate Change Programme. 

*This article is co-published with the Mail & Guardian.