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.
Who Will Shape the UN Tax Convention? Governance, Participation and the Law Behind the Rules
Ezequiel Steuermann
Programme Officer - Economic Justice and Climate Finance
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR)
Patrick Orr
Economic Policy Officer
Public Services International (PSI)
Séverine Picard
Coordinator
Network of Trade Unions for Tax Justice (NUTJ)
As negotiations on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation move forward, public attention understandably remains focused on the substantive tax rules that may eventually emerge. But the institutions created around those rules may prove just as important.
On 3 August, Public Services International (PSI) and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) convened an informal roundtable discussion on institutional design, implementation, and future negotiation processes with government negotiators from different regions, trade unions, civil society organizations and technical experts.
As the discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule, these reflections bring together the main themes discussed, without attributing views to individual participants.
The conversation ranged widely: the powers of the future governing body, the role of subsidiary bodies, the relationship between the Framework Convention and its protocols, the resources required for implementation, the participation of civil society and the legal character of future decisions.
Yet a common concern ran through much of the discussion: the Convention will only be as inclusive, effective and legitimate as the institutions created to implement it.
Governance Is Not Separate from Substance
Governance provisions can appear technical, but in practice they determine where authority will sit after the Convention is adopted.
The discussion highlighted a genuine dilemma. A framework convention must remain flexible enough to evolve, but leaving too much unresolved can transfer major political choices to institutions whose powers and accountability have not yet been clearly defined.
Participants differed over how much authority the future Conference of the Parties should have. Some were uneasy about giving it broad powers that could bypass national parliaments; others regarded an inclusive Conference as the most democratic forum for future decisions. Its role will also depend on how much detail the Convention itself contains.
More operational matters, such as accreditation deadlines, speaking order, document circulation and other administrative procedures, can be developed later through rules of procedure. But participants also discussed whether decisions should be made by consensus or majority vote, and whether voting on a protocol should be limited to States that have ratified it.
Participation Is Part of the Convention’s Knowledge Infrastructure
One of the strongest messages emerging from the discussion was that participation should not be reduced to a question of who is physically allowed into a meeting.
This is why transparency and participation belong at the center of the governance debate. Civil society organizations, trade unions, researchers, journalists and organizations representing affected communities bring independent research, technical expertise and evidence of how tax policies affect workers, inequality, public services and human rights.
Meaningful participation should therefore include more than attendance at plenary sessions. It should encompass access to non-confidential documents, written and oral contributions, and opportunities to provide evidence to subsidiary bodies and technical working groups. Although draft Article 13 recognises stakeholder participation in the work of the Conference of the States Parties, participants considered that stronger guarantees will be needed to ensure this engagement remains meaningful throughout the Convention’s implementation.
The current draft Convention creates subsidiary bodies and technical working groups but does not secure the external engagement discussed during the roundtable. This gap could leave key union demands, including public country-by-country reporting and formulary apportionment, unresolved. Unions need an ongoing role in the review and implementation of countries’ commitments, as they can provide a unique perspective on the dynamic effects of multilateral tax decisions on workers, wages, employment and public services, while helping to ensure outstanding issues can be addressed through future protocols.
A minimum participation guarantee should be included in the Convention itself, while leaving practical details to future rules of procedure. Non-State actors would not have voting rights or formal decision-making authority, which would remain with States Parties. GI-ESCR has developed detailed comparative research on stakeholder participation across international treaty regimes, together with draft treaty language proposing amendments to Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Tax Convention.
International-Law Expertise Can No Longer Remain Peripheral
International tax negotiations have historically been driven by tax specialists, whose expertise remains indispensable. The UN Tax Convention, however, is a multilateral treaty with implications that extend well beyond technical tax policy.
Negotiators are therefore making choices about delegated powers, the legal effect of decisions, State consent, dispute settlement and the relationship between the Convention and its protocols.
Delegations and civil society should draw more systematically on public international law, treaty and human rights expertise, so that important legal consequences receive proper scrutiny.
Institutional Equality Requires Resources
Formal equality among States will mean little if only some governments can participate effectively. Developing-country administrations may lack staff, databases, legal expertise and resources, while the Secretariat itself will require sufficient and predictable funding.
A genuinely inclusive convention will require support for developing-country participation and the technical and legal capacity needed to implement it.
Moving Tax Cooperation to the UN Is Not Enough
The move toward a UN tax convention is historically important. But a change of venue does not automatically produce a change in power: a UN institution can still reproduce opacity, unequal access to expertise and closed decision-making.
Avoiding that outcome will require deliberate choices. The future Convention should guarantee meaningful participation, transparency and public accountability, and be capable of receiving independent evidence from workers and affected communities.
Workers and their communities pay twice when tax systems fail: first when corporate income and wealth are distributed unfairly between labour and capital, and again when lost public revenue weakens essential public services. The future international tax architecture should therefore be judged not only by the revenue it helps mobilize, but by whether it makes tax policymaking more transparent, gives States greater capacity to act in the public interest and supports human rights.
The Institutional Choices Made Now Will Shape the Convention’s Future
The most resilient framework will combine clear legal and institutional safeguards with enough flexibility to evolve. The promise of the UN Tax Convention will be tested not only in the obligations written into the treaty, but in who can shape, interpret and hold accountable the institutions that bring them to life.
Related Articles
SITEMAP
TAKE ACTION
NEWSLETTER
