With increased international concern over the pervasive plastic pollution problem, early negotiations to develop a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution (“the Plastics Treaty”) were supported by 175 member countries toward a sustainable plastics future. Defining features of the plastics treaty by UNEP member countries began in Punta del Este, Uruguay in November 2022 during the first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-1). However, INC-1 ended with many unanswered questions regarding the structure, scope, and targets of the treaty. Sixty-seven member countries, including members of the High Coalition Ambition, submitted their objectives, guiding principles, and expectations for the treaty before the INC-2 negotiations while also suggesting measures for its effective implementation. This paper compiles submissions of the 67 member countries and evidence-based policymaking approaches that have been described in peer-reviewed and gray literature following INC-1, but before the INC-2 negotiations in Paris, France in June 2023. Recommendations for developing an effective plastics treaty by most member countries include incorporating the complete life cycle of plastics, promotion of transparency in global trade through uniform labeling measures, capping virgin plastic production, incorporating extended producer responsibility to develop a circular economy, and addressing hazardous chemicals in plastics. Suggested implementation measures include building a multilateral fund, supporting smaller countries with technology transfer, improving local stakeholder engagement, developing subsidiary bodies, and regular national reporting. Encouragingly, many of these national plans were proposed in the Zero Draft document released in September 2023 before INC-3 in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2023 and further developed in the revised draft text which served as the provisional agenda at INC-4 in April 2024 in Ottawa, Canada.

This article assesses different approaches currently discussed and developed in international human rights and investment law to establish investor obligations. The article begins with a general framework of analysing and comparing these approaches. Next, attempts to include direct obligations of business entities in international human rights treaties are discussed. Despite earlier indications the recent initiative to create a legally binding instrument on business and human rights will most likely not include direct obligations for business entities. Subsequently, the article assesses the development of investor obligations in new international investment treaties and through the interpretation and application of existing international investment agreements. Arguably, the former will not lead to binding obligations in the foreseeable future and the latter rests on methodologically questionable grounds. Consequently, the article suggests that the way forward will require domestic legislation in host and home states to establish investor obligations which can be taken into account when interpreting existing investment treaty clauses requiring the investor to adhere to domestic law. This would reflect recent trends both in investment law reforms as well as the business and human rights movement.