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.