Tax Treaty Arbitration: An Unacceptable Surrender of National Sovereignty or an Expression of Sovereign Power?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The release in 2016 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of a draft multilateral treaty to modify thousands of global bilateral tax treaties was met with surprisingly strong support by the international community, with many states signing, ratifying, and implementing the treaty. One of the treaty's most contentious elements is the addition to the dispute resolution measures in bilateral treaties, a process known as mutual agreement procedure, of a mandatory arbitration procedure that is to be available where agreement cannot be reached under the conventional process. In contrast to the mutual agreement procedure, which includes no requirement that a final agreement be reached, the mandatory arbitration procedure can provide a guaranteed resolution of a treaty dispute. Although the arbitration article has been ratified by most developed countries, many developing nations have noted reservations to it, indicating that they will not incorporate it into their bilateral treaties. Central to the many arguments that have been put forward by opponents of mandatory arbitration in bilateral tax treaties is the argument that agreeing to mandatory arbitration would amount to an unacceptable surrender of sovereignty. However, when viewed critically in the context of tax treaties, this and many other concerns fall away or are revealed to be red herring arguments. A better view, this article suggests, is that entering into a tax treaty is an exercise of fiscal sovereignty, and any agreement to reduce taxing or other rights in the treaty should be seen as an element of that exercise of sovereignty to gain the benefits or advantages the parties seek through a treaty that grants mutual rights to and imposes mutual obligations on sovereign signatories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".