MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153811296 · doi:10.24926/19441992.594

Sovereignty, Taxation and Social Contract

2009· article· en· W2153811296 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Christians

Bibliographic record

VenueMinnesota journal of international law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial contractSovereigntyInterdependenceLaw and economicsPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsTax policyTax avoidancePublic economicsPolitical scienceDouble taxationTax reformPolitical economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

nations under an implied social contract.7 This view of sovereignty could have powerful implications for national taxation.Recognizing ourselves as parties to a global social contract would require a fundamental reassessment of the conventional standards of tax policy design.Instead of focusing on national tax policy as appropriately reflecting only or even primarily the needs and wants of national constituents, a global social contract would require national policy to reflect outward as well, to consider the needs and wants of the worldwide community.Accordingly, this article examines the OECD's work on harmful tax competition from a political philosophy perspective in order to identify the existence of a global social contract for taxation and to assess its content and implications.A contractarian approach demonstrates the inadequacy of traditional tax policy analysis tools that are applied as if any given tax system is bound to the demands and authority of the nation-state, when global integration and interdependence is the social, institutional, and economic reality.If nations have sovereign duties in accordance with a global social contract, current and future national tax policy choices can only be Sorensen, Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution, 47 POL.STUD.590 (1999).More specifically, in the context of international law generally, the idea is commonly held that states have some positive obligation to cooperate with each other.For example, UN Charter Resolution 2625 provides that "States have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences."Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res.2625, at 123, U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp.No. 18, U.N. Doc.A/8018 (Oct.24, 1970).Exactly what this resolution requires in terms of positive action is a matter of extensive debate within international law scholarship.For an introduction see, for example, A. V. LOwE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 110-113 (2007).For the purposes of this article, I extract the idea of sovereign duty from the larger concept of sovereignty itself in order to distinguish sovereignty from autonomy, as these two concepts are often conflated in legal scholarship that addresses the connections between sovereignty and taxation.See infra Part II.A.7. The approach of this article is by no means the only analytical framework for examining the OECD as an institution and its influence on national law in the U.S. and elsewhere.The same issues could also be analyzed from a law and economics, utilitarian, game theoretic or international relations approach, among others.See Allison Christians, Steven Dean, Diane Ring & Adam H. Rosenzweig, Taxation as a Global Socio-Legal Phenomenon, 14 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP.L. 303, 306 (2008) (arguing that more analysis of tax policy from these various lines of inquiry would help clarify the role of law in regulating global economic activity).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinnesota journal of international lawSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207