Don´t miss any updates!
On the Ground
Explore our work with partners, globally and locally, to tackle social and economic injustice using a human rights lens.
GI-ESCR at the 5th Session of the UN Tax Convention Negotiations
The fifth session of negotiations for a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation opened in New York on 3 August 2026 with an immediate reminder that the legitimacy of the future international tax system will depend not only on the rules States adopt, but also on who is allowed into the room to shape them.
Before substantive negotiations began, Türkiye opposed the participation of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), an organisation with a history spanning more than three decades and a key role in the human rights movement in Africa. It raised allegations concerning the organisation’s financial conduct and urged other States to vote against its inclusion. China and Bangladesh joined Türkiye in voting against the organisation’s participation.
Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of States rejected this attempt, with more than 40 delegations voting to allow KHRC to participate. Ireland expressly defended inclusive, multistakeholder engagement and the inclusion of non-governmental organisations.
The outcome was welcomed. The precedent, however, remains deeply troubling. It is not the first time that States have voted against the participation of individual NGOs in this space.
Civil society participation in negotiations concerning a global tax convention should not depend on whether individual States are willing to tolerate organisations that may scrutinise their conduct. Nor should participation be vulnerable to allegations raised from the floor, without a transparent and consistent process for assessing them. Any objection to the accreditation of a civil society organisation must be handled through fair procedures that protect organisations from arbitrary or politically motivated exclusion.
Far from being an isolated incident, this episode illustrates a broader structural trend towards limiting participation in the new tax regime. In the current zero draft, articles 13 and 14 establish the future Conference of the States Parties and its subsidiary bodies but contain no guarantees for the participation of civil society, affected communities, trade unions, researchers or other relevant stakeholders.
This is a significant omission. The Convention is intended to create an evolving framework, with many of its rules, implementation mechanisms and future protocols to be developed after its adoption. Unless meaningful participation is protected in the Convention itself, access to future meetings may be left entirely to rules of procedure negotiated later by States.
Civil society must be able to do more than observe from the back of the room. The Convention should guarantee timely access to information and negotiating documents, opportunities to submit written contributions, the ability to intervene in meetings, participation in subsidiary bodies and consultations, and transparent procedures for organising side events and contributing technical expertise.
These safeguards should apply not only during the present negotiations, but throughout the future life of the Convention.
A New Framework or a Vehicle for Preserving the Status Quo?
The first substantive debate concerned the objectives and principles contained in Articles 1 and 2. A recurring dividing line emerged over whether the Convention should establish a genuinely new and equitable framework or merely complement the international tax architecture that already exists.
Several delegations, led largely but not exclusively by countries from the Global North, called for explicit language requiring consistency, complementarity or synergies with existing tax instruments and institutions.
The European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Japan, Italy and others warned against duplication, parallel rules and legal uncertainty.
Legal coherence and predictability are legitimate concerns. However, avoiding duplication cannot become a euphemism for insulating existing institutions and standards from democratic scrutiny or substantive reform.
The present international tax architecture was developed through forums in which many developing countries did not participate on an equal footing. It has also failed to prevent most countries from losing approximately USD 492 billion every year to cross-border tax abuse.
These are resources that could otherwise support public health systems, education, social protection, climate action and other economic, social and cultural rights.
States have an obligation to mobilise and use the maximum of their available resources for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. International tax rules are therefore not simply a technical matter. They directly affect whether governments can finance the public services and institutions required to fulfil those obligations.
A UN Tax Convention will not fulfil its mandate if it simply incorporates standards developed elsewhere or limits itself to identifying gaps left by existing initiatives.
Its transformative potential lies precisely in enabling all States to negotiate international tax rules on an equal footing and to reconsider arrangements that have produced unequal taxing rights and persistent revenue losses.
This point was strongly articulated by Kenya, which emphasised that the mandate is to establish a new framework, rather than simply complement what already exists. Kenya also noted that existing arrangements have not been equitable, particularly for developing countries.
Brazil similarly warned that inserting references to other forums into the Convention’s objectives could place the UN process in a subordinate role. Tanzania stressed that the mandate is not to mirror existing instruments but to develop a new framework, while Algeria noted that current agreements are imperfect and must be reviewed, improved and updated.
The African Group, India and several other delegations also argued that questions concerning the relationship between the Convention and existing instruments should be addressed in the article specifically dedicated to that issue, rather than being inserted into the Convention’s objectives and principles.
Why Article 21 Is Significant
This makes the defence of the current Article 21 especially important.
As presently conceived, Article 21 would create a legal duty for States Parties to work progressively towards adapting their existing international tax agreements to the Convention.
It would not automatically invalidate or override bilateral treaties. Nor would it impose immediate and unpredictable changes. Its implementation would instead take place gradually, including through subsequent decisions and processes under the Conference of the States Parties.
This is precisely what can provide legal certainty and predictability: a common direction of travel combined with progressive implementation.
Removing or weakening this obligation would risk leaving the Convention disconnected from the dense network of existing tax treaties through which taxing rights are currently allocated.
A framework convention must be capable of evolving, but evolution requires a legal bridge between its new principles and the rules already in force. Article 21 provides that bridge.
Human Rights and Sustainable Development Enter the Debate
The afternoon discussion offered some encouraging signs.
- Brazil called for stronger references to human rights, gender, race and progressive taxation, as well as a mechanism for periodic review by the Conference of the States Parties.
- Mexico supported the inclusion of human rights and explicit economic, social and cultural rights priorities.
- Jamaica highlighted the environmental pillar of sustainable development and referred to common but differentiated responsibilities and the International Court of Justice’s climate advisory opinion.
- Norway and the United Kingdom also supported strengthening the draft’s human rights and environmental dimensions.
These interventions underscore what is at stake.
International tax cooperation is not an isolated technical exercise. Decisions about taxing rights, illicit financial flows and corporate tax avoidance determine whether States possess the resources required to meet their human rights obligations and respond to the climate emergency.
The opening day therefore revealed two interconnected battles that will shape the Convention’s future:
- Whether the UN process will be genuinely open to civil society and to those affected by international tax rules.
- Whether the Convention will transform an unequal international tax architecture or be confined by the standards and institutions it was created to improve.
On Day 1, civil society’s presence in the room was successfully defended. The task now is to ensure that such participation becomes a permanent right and that the Convention retains the ambition necessary to deliver meaningful change.
Related Articles
SITEMAP
TAKE ACTION
NEWSLETTER
