Image courtesy of Charles Parker/Pexels
Day 1. August 3
The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee opened in New York this week, and for the first time delegations are working from a full draft treaty. The Co-Leads released their zero draft on 21 July — twenty-six articles covering everything from the allocation of taxing rights to the taxation of high-net-worth individuals, illicit financial flows, and the machinery that will govern the Convention once it exists. Over the next two weeks, governments will decide how much of it survives.
Day one was spent almost entirely on Articles 1 and 2: the objectives and the guiding principles. These are short provisions, but they are the interpretive anchors for everything that follows — and, crucially, they carry the commitment to align international tax cooperation with States' obligations under international human rights law. That principle was hard-won during the Terms of Reference negotiations in 2024, and CESR has argued since that it is the entry point for the issues squeezed out of the ToR: extraterritorial obligations, progressivity, gender.
Holding the line
The dominant dynamic of the day was defensive, and it came from the Global South. Speaking for the African Group, Zambia was unambiguous: Articles 1 and 2 reproduce what the General Assembly already agreed, the ToR were substantively negotiated, and reopening them now would mean losing sight of what the Convention was created to achieve. Nigeria described the ToR as the constitution of this process. Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Algeria and Burkina Faso followed, joined by the African Union and ATAF. India made a sharp structural argument by saying that each subparagraph of Article 2 connects to a concrete tax deliverable, which is precisely why these are operative provisions and not preambular context. Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Azerbaijan and Saudi Arabia supported retaining the text. The Chair reinforced the point, noting that the objectives and principles were extracted directly from a ToR adopted by the UNGA.
The pushback
The counter-pressure was equally coordinated. Ireland, speaking for the EU27, called for the Convention to build on rather than replace the existing architecture, for the Conference of the States Parties to remain facilitative, for the Secretariat's role to stay limited, and for consensus on anything affecting the rights or obligations of Parties. The UK, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Italy, Austria and Luxembourg aligned. Norway questioned whether "fairness" carries legal meaning at all. Germany went furthest, arguing the instrument should contain objectives and principles rather than binding obligations of uncertain scope.
Two further moves deserve watching. Belgium proposed a standalone article on tax sovereignty modelled on the UN Convention against Corruption, picked up by Czechia, Sweden, Korea and Colombia. And Czechia and Estonia both suggested the ToR are merely a recommendation the INC may depart from — a direct challenge to the Global South's central argument of the day.
On human rights
The pressure on Article 2(c) arrived as redefinition. The International Chamber of Commerce welcomed the human rights reference and then argued that taxpayer rights and procedural safeguards should sit alongside it in the guiding principles. UN Independent Expert Attiya Waris named the risk directly: the draft does not unpack what international human rights law means here, and that silence is what invited taxpayer rights onto the floor.
Civil society pushed back by arguing that Article 11 devotes detailed text to protecting confidentiality while human rights receive a single vague line; a draft that, as it stands, protects the privacy of the powerful better than the rights of everyone else. The ILO proposed strengthening Article 1(c) with language on consistency with UN human rights instruments and the progressive extension of social protection floors.
There were openings. Sweden welcomed Article 2(c) and asked that gender equality be added to 2(d). Brazil said that if the article were reopened, it would add progressivity and broad-based taxation, and later called for coherence with human rights and common but differentiated responsibilities. Jamaica pressed for CBDR and environmental commitments. Mexico insisted the negotiation process itself must meet the fairness and transparency standards the Convention proclaims.
Discussion moved to Articles 4 and 5 on sustainable development and fair allocation of tax rights as the day closed.
Day 2. August 4
Tuesday took delegations into the substance: fair allocation of taxing rights, high-net-worth individuals, illicit financial flows, and harmful tax practices. Four articles, one pattern. On each, the zero draft has softened since the January and February versions — and on each, the same coalition arrived to defend the softening in the language of legal certainty.
Article 5: the heart of the Convention
The African Union put it plainly. Article 5 (fair allocation of taxing rights on multinational enterprises) is not one provision among many; it is the assurance that countries where wealth is genuinely generated will get to tax it, and it is why delegations came to New York in the first place. Africa, the AU said, has already had decades of exploration. What it wants now are commitments.
The draft does not yet supply them. Two changes drew the most fire. First, "economic activity" has disappeared from the list of nexus factors in paragraph 1 — India called it the loss of the anchor on source jurisdiction, and China, Kenya, Zambia (for the African Group), Jamaica and Norway all asked for its return. Second, the factors are joined by "and" rather than "or", which would make them cumulative. India, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kenya and the African Group want that fixed.
"Real economic contribution" produced an unusual convergence. Senegal argued that speculative finance is not real economic activity and the qualifier invites confusion; Jamaica warned that capital-exporting countries could claim to be the real source of contribution. Switzerland and Estonia also want "real" deleted, but for the opposite reason, that it creates uncertainty.
The deeper fight is over paragraph 2. Zambia, for the African Group, called the language "explore and pursue" too soft to carry any commitment, and announced a resubmission adding a third paragraph on concrete measures: domestic law, protocols, and the renegotiation of tax treaties. The African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) was blunt — without treaty renegotiation, it does not see how fair allocation happens at all. Germany, by contrast, welcomed the removal of the renegotiation requirement as an improvement. Algeria contended that without that mechanism, existing asymmetries would stay in place.
Brazil reassured the room that Article 5 creates no immediate obligation and does not directly affect treaties. Denmark thanked Brazil for the clarification and used it to press its own case. Switzerland's proposal for ‘informal-informals’ discussion on Article 5 was widely supported.
Article 6: sovereignty as a blocking device
On high-net-worth individuals, the diagnosis was near-unanimous among Global South delegations: the article has been watered down. Paragraph 1 language "cooperate to enhance" should return to "develop and implement" (African Group, India, Brazil, Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, Pakistan, Honduras, South Africa, ATAF). The word "general" in paragraph 2 unduly restricts what information can be shared and should go. And "explore" in paragraph 3 should become "adopt".
The new sovereignty clause at the end of paragraph 3 became the day's flashpoint. Belgium proposed a standalone sovereignty article modelled on the Convention against Corruption, and was backed by Germany, Estonia, Austria, France, Switzerland, Korea, Sweden, Poland, Ireland and others. Africa Group members answered that Article 2(b) already covers it and that repeating it article by article undermines each provision. Nigeria sharply underscored that a treaty means agreeing to override domestic law, so states are already surrendering sovereignty by signing.
Two interventions worth carrying forward. Mexico observed that the article treats high-net-worth individuals solely through avoidance and evasion, when the point is ensuring they pay their fair share and reforming tax systems accordingly. Spain asked that taxation under paragraph 3 be not only effective but progressive.
Articles 7 and 8
The afternoon turned on one word: illicit. A large bloc of European states, joined by Japan, Korea and Singapore, wants tax avoidance removed from the definition on the grounds that avoidance is lawful. Nigeria and ATAF answered that illicit is deliberately broader than illegal — the largest losses to developing-country treasuries come from arrangements lawful at every step. Brazil floated a possible landing zone: list avoidance, evasion and illicit flows as parallel items rather than subspecies.
Article 8 opened late. India proposed language on practices that erode the tax base of other countries. Discussion continues Wednesday.