(1st meeting) - Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (INC Tax) - 3 to 13 August 2026

Excellency, distinguished delegates.
Good morning.
I declare open the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Corporation and call its first preliminary meeting to order.
I will now deliver an opening statement.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues.
I welcome you to the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its two early protocols.
It's a pleasure to welcome you back to New York as we begin the second substantive session of our work in 2026.
This decision marks an important transition in the work of the committee.
Since we began our substantive work last year, the three workstreams have advanced through successive stages of discussion, technical consideration, and the drafting.
For the first time, the committee has before it draft texts covering all three ansates.
This is a significant step forward.
It means that we can now move from discussing concepts, possible approaches Two, examining concrete provisions.
Having the three thickets before us also allows the committee to consider how they fit together.
We can examine how the objectives, principles, and commitments of the Framework Convention relate to the more specific provisions of the protocols.
We can consider whether terminologies procedures are appropriately aligned, whether there are gaps or unnecessary overlaps, and whether particular provisions have been placed in the instrument where they can operate most effectively.
Our task during this session is therefore not only to consider the substance of each instrument individually, but also to assess the adequacy of the provisions and their interactions.
Excellencies, it is important to be clear about the nature of the documents before us.
These are zero drafts.
They are working text intend to give concrete form to our discussions and to provide a basis on which negotiations can begin.
Where alternative formulations appear, the committee will need to consider which approach should be pursued.
Where language is placed in square brackets, this indicates an issue on which further direction from member states is required, where delegations consider that the language should be amended, strengthened, qualified, reallocated, or removed.
This is the stage at which those views should be presented.
A provision in a zero draft does not mean that the matter has been settled.
Similarly, the absence of a proposal from the current does not prevent the committee from considering it.
During this session, the committee will begin its provision by provision consideration of the text.
Our immediate purpose is to identify where there is support for the approaches reflected in the drafts, understand the concerns and alternatives raised by the allegations and provide the co leads with sufficiently clear direction to prepare the next versions.
A throughout this process, proposals will need to receive sufficient support from the floor in order to be carried forward in subsequent drafts.
There is much to do between now and the Nairobi decisionion and not much time to do it.
Therefore, to make effective use of our limited time, I encourage delegations to focus their interventions directly on their provisions under consideration, explain the reasons for any proposed changes, and wherever possible, offer concrete alternatives.
I also encourage delegations to consider the implications of the proposals for other provisions and for the coherence of the three instruments as a whole.
I will work with the Bureau, the co leads, and the Secretariat to keep our discussions focused and efficient while ensuring that every delegation has a meaningful opportunity to participate.
As in previous sessions, the allocation of time among the framework convention and the two protocols may need to be adjusted depending on the progress of our discussions.
Excellencies.
The drafts before us reflect the substantial work undertaken by the delegation, the co leads, and the Secretariat since the committee began its substantive work last year.
They are a product of a cumulative process, but they are not its conclusion.
They are the starting point for the nextst and more detailed phase of our negotiation.
As always, our work must remain inclusive, transparent, a member state led.
Every delegation must have a meaningful opportunity to contribute and the progress will require careful listening, flexibility, and mutual respect.
The engagement of stakeholders from international organizations, civil society, academia, and the private sector also continues to enrich our work and encourage them to contribute constructively.
Before we begin, I wish to express my appreciation to our coles for their leadership, to the Secretariat for its tireless support to stakeholders for their constructive engagement and to all delegations for the work undertaken in preparation for this decisionssion.
With that, let's begin our work.
Thank you.
I now give the floor to miss George San, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
The floor is yours.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good morning, Excellencys distinguished delegates and colleagues.
It is indeed a great pleasure to welcome you to this fifth session of the intergovernmental Negotiation Committee on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, also on behalf of the Under Secretary-General of TSA, Mr.
Lee on Ha.
Let me begin by thanking the chair, the Bureau, the co leads, delegations, and all those who have contributed to the intense work undertaken since the committee last met.
The documents that we have before us this morning reflect sustained engagement and careful technical and legal work.
This commitment speaks to the seriousness with which member states continue to approach this process.
Dear colleagues, let me highlight three messages at the outset of this week's meeting.
First, on the significance of this moment.
These negotiations serve a larger purpose because international tax cooperation is not an end in itself.
It's about enabling countries to mobilize domestic resources for sustainable development, to reduce inequality, and invest in people.
It's also about ensuring that the international tax system reflects the sovereign equality of all member states and that all countries can participate meaningfully in shaping the rules that affect them.
This is a historic opportunity to build a system that is more inclusive, fair, transparent, and effective, and that responds to the different needs, priorities, and capacities of countries.
My second message on the progress achieved.
The committee now has before it drafts of the Framework Convention and both of the early protocols.
At the fourth session, we spoke of 2026 as the year in which the process would move from scoping to drafting and that transition has now taken place.
The draft convention sets out proposed principles, commitments, and institutional arrangements.
The two draft protocols address taxation of income from cross border services and the prevention and resolution of tax disputes.
Taken together, these texts provide a concrete basis for the negotiations that lie ahead.
The preparation reflects substantial progress, as well as contributions and different perspectives presented by member states throughout the negotiations during the intersectional work.
My third message on the work ahead.
The circulation of these drafts is clearly not the conclusion of the process.
It really marks the beginning of maybe the most demanding phase, the negotiation of the texts themselves.
I'm sure delegations, you are fully aware of how you now need to examine the language carefully, identify areas of convergence, and address differences constructively.
The task is to translate shared objectives into provisions that are clear, balanced, administrable, and capable of effective implementation.
This will require technical rigor and political judgment.
It will also require flexibility, patience, and a willingness to listen.
International tax cooperation goes to the heart of national sovereignty and development priorities.
I think differences are therefore natural.
But our collective responsibility is to work through them in a manner that is open, inclusive, transparent, and grounded in mutual respect.
The strength and legitimacy of the convention will depend not only on the substance of the final texts, but also on the integrity of the process through which they are negotiated.
On our part, as the UN Secretariat, we will continue to support this member state led process in an impartial and transparent manner and provide the support necessary for all delegations to participate effectively.
Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, with that, I will now hand the floor back to the chair who will guide the committee through the organization of work, as well as the issues before you over the coming two weeks.
Thank you.
I thanks, Assistant Secretary-General.
The committee will resume its consideration of agenda item one entitled Election of offices in accordance with the General Assembly Resolution 70 9235 of 24th of December 2024, the committee chair elect 18 vice chairs and a reporter elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation and taking into account gender balance.
I have received the following resignations from amongst African states, Mr.
Matthew Mr.
Matthew en Jorda of Nigeria from among Asean specific states, Mr.
Wal Lee of China, Mr.
Vascar sway of India, and Mr.
Wsadin Melki of Saudi Arabia, and miss Yafang of Singapore, from among the Eastern European States, Mr.
Lucas Herdlia of Czech Republic, from among Western Europe and other states, miss Sara Gro of Denmark and miss Angela Wilfce of Sweden.
I have received the following nominations.
From among African states, Mr.
Sanda Okyo of Nigeria from among the Asia specific states, Mr.
Hwang Gk Bon of Republic of Korea, Mr.
Abasaiq of Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr.
Fida Muhammad of Pakistan, and miss Asma.
Arune of United Arab Emirates from among the Eastern European States, miss ji Anal of Hungary, from among the Western Europe and other states, miss Angie Kloser of Belgium and miss Marcia Oro of Portugal.
Excuse me for any wrong pronunciation for any of these names.
May I take it that the committee wish to elect the nominees by acclamation as vice chairs of the committee? I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
On behalf of the committee, I congratulate the vice chairs.
The committee has just concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item one.
The committee will resume its consideration of Agenda Item three entitled Organizational Matters.
Members will recall that by its decision to taken on the third of Decision two taken on the 3rd of February 2025, the committee adopted the program of work for its decisions on the understanding that it might be revised during the sessions as needed.
In this connection, the revised program of work is contained in document CRB 31, which has been distributed to delegations vice e delegate and the website.
Members will also recall that by its decision three taken on 6th of February 2025, the committee decided to take decisions at the beginning of each of its sessions on any new applications by international organizations and on participation of representatives of other relevant non governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions, the private the private sector and other stakeholders.
In this connection, the committee has before it draft decision CRB 30 entitled Participation of International Organizations, Civil Society and other relevant stakeholders and draft Amendment CRB 35.
I now give the floor to the representative of Ireland to introduce draft Amendment CRB 35.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Is that.
That's perfect.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Through the document titled List of Applications from civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders to participate in INC tax shared on ten April 2026, the Secretariat provided information on applications for accreditation from intergovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions, private sector organizations, and other relevant stakeholders.
In the draft decision of pre June 2026, contained in document a slash Act 298 slash CRP dot 30, two non governmental organizations included in the April 10th document are not listed among stakeholders proposed for admission.
Based on the available documentation, it is not clear whether objections were raised and if so, how they were substantiated, nor is it apparent by whom the objections were raised.
Against this background, the reasons for their exclusion remain unclear.
Ireland is committed to ensuring the inclusivity and transparency of the work of the INC.
In this context, we strongly support inclusive and meaningful multi stakeholder engagement.
Guided by these considerations, Ireland advocates for the extension of the list of admitted stakeholders to include the two non governmental organizations concerned.
The amendments submitted by Ireland serves this objective.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I now give the floor to the Secretary.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Excellency, distinguished delegates.
If any countries not listed on CRP 35 wish to co sponsor the draft amendments submitted by Ireland, please press the microphone button now.
I see Canada, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Belgium.
Estonia, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, France, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Sweden, Cechia and Spain.
If these delegations could kindly unpress the microphone button, If there are any further delegations not listed on CRP 35, which I have not read out just now, who wish to co sponsor the draft amendments submitted by Ireland, please press the microphone button.
I see Latvia, Malta, Italy.
And then that concludes the list.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Yes.
Mr.
Chair, I recognize Hungary as a co sponsor of the draft amendment.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank Secretary.
I now give the floor to the representative of Turkey on a point of order.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
My delegation requests that the draft amendment CRP 35 be divided so that the two organizations listed therein are considered separately.
We further request a recorded vote on the second part of the amendment concerning the participation of the organization called Kenya Human Rights Commission, I think.
All right.
I thank the representative of Turkey.
I understand that the representative of Turkey has moved with the meaning of Rule 129 that a separate recorded vote to be taken on the inclusion of the organization entitled Kenya Human Rights Commission as listed in the draft amendment CRB 35.
May I ask the representative of Turkey to confirm this understanding? That is correct, yes.
I thank the representative of Turkey.
May I take it that the committee wish to proceed accordingly? I see no objection.
It is so decided.
Delegations wishing to make a statement in the explanation of vote before the vote on any or all of the proposals under this item, including the draft decision and the draft amendments are invited to do so now in one intervention.
After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them.
I remind delegations that the statement in explanation of vote are limited to 5 minutes.
Distinguished legate of Turkey, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Turkey will vote against a part of the amendment, CRP 35 concerning the organization called Kenya Human Rights Commission.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission has been the subject of serious allegations by competent authorities of the state in which it is established, including allegations of operating unauthorized bank accounts, failing to comply with tax obligations, and employing foreign personnel without permission.
Subsequent judicial proceedings identified procedural deficiencies in the actions taken by those authorities, the court did not determine the merits of those allegations.
In our view, such unresolved concerns warrant caution when considering the organization's participation in UN meetings.
We also regret that no delegation engaged with Turkey bilaterally to discuss our concerns or to seek a mutually acceptable solution regarding the inclusion of this organization.
We would have welcomed such an exchange in good faith and remain ready to work constructed towards a consensual outcome.
In the absence of such engagement, we have no choice but to oppose the inclusion of the Kenya Human Rights Commission and therefore call upon all member states to vote against the part of the amendment CRP 35 concerning that organization.
I thank you.
We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote.
We will now proceed to consider draft decision CRP 30 and draft Amendment CRB 35 before we take action on the draft decision in accordance with the Rule 130 of the rules of procedure, the committee shall first take a decision on the draft amendment CRP 35.
In accordance with the decision taken just now, we will now proceed to consider the inclusion of the organization entitled Kenya Human Rights Commission.
A recorded vote has been requested.
We shall now begin the vote process.
Those in favor of inclusion, including the organization entitled Kenya Human Rights Commission, please signify those against abstentions.
The committee is now voting on the inclusion of the organization, Kenya Human Rights Commission.
A vote yes signifies a vote in favor of including the organization, Kenya Human Rights Commission.
A vote no signifies a vote against including the organization, Kenya Human Rights Commission.
Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen The voting has been completed.
Please lock the machine.
The result of the vote is as follows, in favor of 42, against three abstentions 20.
The committee has decided to include the organization entitled the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
I take it that the committee wishes to adopt draft Amendment CRP 35 as a whole? I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
Okay.
The committee will now proceed to consider draft decision CRB 30 as amended.
May I take it that the committee wish to adopt draft decision CRB 30 as amended? I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
The committee has concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item three.
Before adjuring the meeting, I would like to advise that immediately after this meeting, the committee will hold an informal meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.
Delegates, we are going to start the informal meeting just in 5 minutes from now.
We'll just do some changes to the podium and we'll start in 5 minutes.
I recommend if you can stay and keep in your place.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Identification.
We Distinguished delegates, we will now begin our informal meeting and our consideration of Work Stream one on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.
The committee will now has before it the C zero draft of the Framework Convention, which includes all the articles discussed in previous sessions and newly proposed articles, presenting for the first time a complete draft of the convention.
The text brings together the objectives and the principles of the convention, its general commitments, provisions on technical assistance, and the capacity building institutional arrangements, and the final provisions.
It also seeks to establish a coherent relationship between these different parts and between the framework convention and the protocols that may implement or future elaborate its commitments.
Our task during these informal discussions is therefore to examine the articles by article, identify areas of convention and provide clear guidance on the issues that may require further work.
I would like to thank Danielle, co lead of Work Stream one, as well as the Secretariat for the considerable work undertaken in preparing the zero draft.
I will now hand over to Daniel to introduce the tickets and the guide us through the first group of articles.
Mr.
Daniel, the floor is yours.
Good morning, delegates and distinguished excellencies and thank you Chairman, for the introduction.
It's good to see everybody again and As the chairman has mentioned, basically over the past few months since February, we've been working on putting together a zero draft for discussion through the intersectional meetings.
We basically have reflected as we understood the inputs that we've received.
Now as we move into these discussions, I think it would be good for us to just do a quick recap and refresh our memory on some of the things we've gone through over the period.
And since I'm sure a few of us are here for the first time, through the development of the terms of reference in 2024, where we came out with what we expect this committee to undertake and the work we've done so far.
Last year, where we spent scoping the various items in the work streams, the Framework Convention and the first two protocols, Now, this year we've started with the takeout drafting and I believe that we are all happy we've received a zero draft to discuss.
Whenever I may go the way of locally, we like using proverbs a lot.
There's an Hebrew proverb saying that says that the lizard, who jumped from the great rocket tree to the ground said that if man will not pres him, he will pve himself.
I think we can all give ourselves a pat on the back for at least what we've been able to do so far and how far we've gone.
And as we continue, I think we all agree that there's been a lot of technicalities, there's a lot of complexity, but we've been able to get this far.
And so I wish to encourage all of us as we continue that the chair has already mentioned that what we need to do at this time is look at this overdraft see what additional inputs, what we need to take out.
I would urge all of us as we go along to also look at what are the concerns we have and suggest what we can use to address those concerns, measure the concerns in a vacuum because then we'll make very good use of our time and be able to actually work on the document.
As we all know, this is a member state led document.
It's what member states say that must reflect in the documents.
There's something that doesn't seem to jive with all of us, we need to work on it while looking at the interests of everybody.
So what we've done with the zero draft is we've them.
Initially, we've just been working on them, I've now group them into several parts, five parts, if we'll put it that way here.
We've come out with an introduction.
We basically takes the first three articles, that's the objective principles and definitions.
We've created a part two, which is the general provisions.
It looks at what we were calling commitments, I should put it that way.
But then they are just general resolutions or provisions as we've put them.
All the items we looked at over there, we've looked at care assistance, which is in Article 12, Article 1313 to 18 looks at the distu agreements, the conference of parties, subsidiary bodies, data collection analysis, review and verification, Secretariat and financial resources.
Then we have the final provisions.
We looked at amendments, relationship with protocols, relationship with other agreements and domestic law.
We looked at settlement of disputes, the signature and ratification and entry into force reservations, and withdrawals.
So generally, this is the way we've drafted a framework convention, and these settings are just to help us to group them and have meaningful discussions.
So the draft is built basically around these three cross cutting approaches.
One, we've looked at the objectives and principles and the commitments which basically established the convention.
Then as we've discussed previously, the actual rules will then be developed through the protocols.
There's a room for periodic reviews and amendments that allow the fragment to respond to new challenges.
We've always said I want to put in a system that is future proof and will be flexible enough to adapt to future changes.
The governance structure to, again, is we looked at the conference of parties, which provides political and legal direction.
We looked at subsidiary bodies that will support implementation, and then any other bodies that will be given specific tasks as well all agree from time to time.
Then the third part looks at implementation as part of the design.
I mean, we can have a very good document, but if we don't implement it, then basically we spent about three or four years doing nothing.
And so we look at the implementation part, we looked at capacity building and care systems.
And also, we've looked at data, how we review and verify and support the implementation.
We've also looked at what financial resources will be required, and all of these things are things that we need to look at, especially in the case of developing countries and others who need additional assistance in order to get some of these things done.
So generally, these are the cross cutting issues that we've looked at.
These are the things that the document revolves around, and these are the things that we need to have at the back of our minds as we continue our discussions.
And so in looking at the governance structure, I think I want to go a bit into it because basically the governance structure is what would sit between our work as the INC and the future of the convention itself.
And so for the Conference of Parties, we've looked at how they should be established and how it will help to achieve the objectives of the convention.
We've looked at its function in terms of adopting rules and pre and elaborating and adopting the supplementary protocols.
We also looked at how the COP can establish additional bodies, work groups, task forces, and whatever to get the implication done.
And then also what other technical assistance and capacity building will be required to carry out and implement the convention.
We've also proposed a subsidiary body for implementation, which basically will sit between the COP and the actual work that needs to be done.
It is a body that per UN rules, it will be open to all parties, all state parties.
It won't be limited to anybody.
It will be basically government representatives, hopefully more of technical experts.
And then it will assist the COP in implementing the convention.
It will report to the COP and periodically provide recommendations that will help with implementation.
There is the provision, as I mentioned earlier, for additional bodies, and they can be temporary or they can be permanent depending on what we agree.
There will be therefore specific tasks to undertake research or to provide some ongoing advice on items as and when it is required.
And they will also report to the COP or to the subsidiary body for implementation as we will all determine.
Then finally, we'll have the Secretariat, which will be required to support the sessions and the reporting and implementation activities.
We will also assist state parties in providing information to the conference, and we'll coordinate with the relevant international and regional organizations and other stakeholders that will be required for implementation of the convention.
So generally, these are some of the things that we want to talk about as introductory remarks.
And as I mentioned again, and the chair has mentioned several times.
These are just preliminary discussions.
They are not cast in stone.
They are open to each of us to contribute to add, to amend, to comment as we deem fit so that together we can come out with a Framework Convention that will stand the test of time, that will meet the needs of all member states, and will support international task cooperation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's the end of the initial presentation.
Give me a minute to look into the articles.
We will now move to the text as we have shared with member states.
All right.
So as we move to the text, I want to mention that though we haven't looked at articles one and two in the sessions, we have indicated earlier that these will come from the terms of reference as was provided to as we've heard in that has been provided to each of us.
And so generally, that's the way we worked on it.
What we also did really was just to move it from, should I say a word of suggestion in terms of the terms of referendum or the convention, should have these objectives to stating them as actual objectives, actual principles, and actual it's basically the language that has changed, not the content or the substance of what we have.
With that, I believe we can open the floor for any comments.
We'll start with Article 1, and with the general comments on Article 1, if we have any.
So the floor is open, please.
Recognize the distinguished delegate from Ireland, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Cold.
I'll make this statement or make this intervention on behalf of the 27 member states of the European Union.
The member states of the European Union reiterate their commitment to effective and fair international tax cooperation and our engagement in the UN process in a pragmatic, inclusive, and forward looking manner, with a view to developing an instrument capable of securing the broadest possible participation.
Consequently, we have actively participated in the different workstream meetings and provided our input regularly over the past few months.
Our objective remains to ensure that the future Convention strengthens effective and fair international tax cooperation, while enhancing legal certainty and the coherence, stability and predictability of the international tax architecture.
It should seek to complement the international tax architecture in particular where gaps are identified but not replaced it.
It is essential that the convention builds on and remains complementary to existing international instruments, internationally agreed standards, and should avoid overlap or conflict with work already underway in other international fora.
In this regard, we recall the terms of reference adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 79 slash 235, in particular, the need to take into account the work of other international fora and potential synergies.
We reiterate our concern that this requirement is not yet sufficiently taken into account and reflected in the current work.
Consistent with this objective and with the nature of the Framework Convention, we have consistently advocated for a convention conceived as a high level instrument setting out objectives, principles, commitments, and institutional arrangements.
We therefore consider it critical that the convention remains aligned with the mandate set out in the UN General Assembly Resolution 79 slash 235.
In particular, it should retain its high level nature and provide sufficient legal certainty now and going forward regarding its relationship with EU and international law, bilateral tax treaties, and other relevant bilateral regional or multilateral agreements and with applicable domestic legal frameworks and constitutional requirements.
It should be made clear that the convention will not affect the rights and obligations of parties under other bilateral, regional or multilateral arrangements unless the parties concerned expressly agree otherwise.
Based on the adopted terms of reference, the text should also clarify that the protocols are optional and binding only on those parties to the convention that choose to become parties to the relevant protocol.
We have consistently highlighted these issues throughout the negotiations, yet our remarks are still not sufficiently reflected in the drafting as the text has progressed.
Clarification of these elements is essential to ensure legal certainty, predictability, and the broadest possible support for the convention and is a key condition for the active and constructive engagement of member states.
Such clarifications are needed to foster confidence in the convention and gain the support necessary for the convention to achieve its stated objectives.
Regarding the institutional framework, we recognize the role of the Conference of the Parties in supporting the effective functioning of the Convention.
We stress the importance that the functions of the Conference of the Parties should remain facilitative in nature and should not result in the interpretation, creation, or modification of substantive obligations without the express consent of the parties concerned.
The current drafting does not yet provide sufficient safeguards in this respect.
We also recognize the support provided by the Secretariat in this regard, whose functions should continue to remain limited to administrative and facilitative functions consistent with its supporting role under the Convention.
We reiterate the importance of a consensus based decision making process within the conference of the parties concerning any matter affecting the substantive rights and obligations of parties.
Consensus is necessary to ensure legitimacy, legal certainty, effective implementation, and the broadest possible participation.
Departures from this principle could significantly undermine both the convention itself and the willingness of states to participate fully in it.
Any such decisions concerning the substantive rights and obligations of parties must be within the powers conferred on the conference of the parties by the convention and without prejudice to the applicable constitutional and domestic legal requirements of each party.
We recognize the extensive work that has been carried out in the workstreams since the last plenary, and we thank the chair, the co leads, and the Secretariat for their efforts.
We strongly believe that further efforts are necessary to ensure an inclusive, transparent, predictable, and efficient negotiating process that takes into account the interests of all delegations and allows them to participate effectively and on an equal footing.
Facilitating the negotiations in this manner will be key to preserving the integrity of the process and is essential for the convention to achieve its stated objectives.
Thank you, Mr.
Colley.
Thank you, Ireland for that statement on behalf of your colleagues.
As we mentioned earlier, you've raised some concerns.
So as we go along, I'm sure we'll get some to address the concerns so that we can all look at it and see how best we want to consider them.
Thank you.
Any other comment? United Kingdom, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Cole.
I suspect that some of the comments I will now make will capture some of the spirit of what our colleagues from the EU 27 just said, but obviously in regard to this article, and let me say this is the first intervention for the UK, thank you to yourself and to the Secretariat for all of the work leading up to this meeting, and we're happy to be here.
So turning to Article 1, so the UK welcomes the inclusion of the objectives in this draft.
We think that the preambular provisions are, of course, important in providing clarity on the aims and objectives of the instrument.
And we also recognize that as you said, that these have been taken from the terms of reference.
We did want to suggest the inclusion of one further objective, and I think this is very much in line with what our colleagues from the EU 27 just said, to recognize the importance of strengthening cooperation and coordination with existing bilateral and multilateral arrangements, reflecting in particular, Article 13 0.4 B.
We think this would make clear that the Framework Convention is intended to augment existing cooperation where it delivers the Framework Convention's aims and provide greater certainty for state parties on how the Framework Convention is intended to interact with existing agreements and initiatives, thereby supporting the state objectives of certainty and effectiveness.
Thank you.
Okay.
Distinguish delegate from Norway, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Colead.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We are happy to be reconvened here for the fifth session.
It's good to see everybody.
We will make some comments combined on Article 1 and Article 2.
We recognize the role that Articles one and two are intended to play in setting out the overall vision and guiding framework for the convention.
These elements play a role in shaping the common understanding of the purpose and direction of our work.
But at the same time, we believe there is merit to consider whether such provisions are best reflected in the preamble where they serve as an overarching interpretive guidance while maintaining a clear distinction between the aspirational objectives and the specific obligations in the Framework Convention.
Several of the concepts contained in Articles one and two are inherently broad and open to different interpretations.
Terms such as fair and equitable are important for guiding our efforts, but it may be difficult to determine, as a matter of legal interpretation, whether a state party has complied with them in any particular circumstance.
In summary, our proposal is about placing the objectives and principles in the part of the convention where they can have the greatest practical and legal value.
In addition, we continue to believe that there would be clear merit to reflect broadly recognized economic principles relevant to international taxation and the importance of economic and legal analysis in this text.
Efficiency, administerability, and predictability and minimizing unintended economic distortions are important considerations that contribute to sustainable tax systems and domestic resource mobilization and should, in our view, be recognized in the text.
Lastly, in our view, we should consider including the important language in the tour, recognizing the consideration of the work of other relevant for us, potential synergies and existing tools, strengths, expertise, and complementarities available in the multiple institutions involved in tax cooperation at the international, regional and local levels.
Thank you.
Thank you, Norway.
Russian Federation, please.
Dear colleagues.
Good morning.
I'm very pleased to see you all again.
We thank the Secretariat for this very complex and effective work thanks to which we've gathered here today to discuss the text of the entire convention in its substance.
Overall, we would like to support Article I and Article 2 of the proposed draft.
Why? Because we have carried out this work not only during the intersectional period, but also when we formulated the terms of reference and essentially the provisions of that document are reflected in these articles.
So overall, we do support the text of these articles.
Next, it is indeed worth noting the statements by our colleagues, including those from the EU, where they expressed their concerns About ensuring that there is no duplication in the convention and that the convention is not something that would replace existing agreements.
I think all of these questions would be useful to discuss a little later on when we are discussing Articles 1920 and 2021 in substance.
All of those concerns that have just been expressed, I think would be more effectively addressed during subsequent discussions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Russia, Colombia, please.
Microphone for the speaker, please.
Good morning.
Thank you to the Secretariat for their work.
Colombia would like to share a concern that has also been expressed from our colleagues from the United Kingdom, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Norway, and the Russian Federation.
We believe that it is very relevant to ensure legal certainty in the concepts that we're discussing.
The principle of sovereignty is essential for international relations pursuant to the UN charter and it needs to be reflected in a preamble, as other delegations have said, a preamble could serve as a general criterion for interpretation, and we believe that in the first paragraph of that preamble, there should be a specific reference to sovereignty.
Likewise, in the second article, Sovereignty appears to be secondary, it comes in second place.
Finally, we believe that the outcome of this tool of this instrument should not be to generate additional obligations That in addition to those that exist in other treaties, they simply must ensure the implementation of those instruments.
To conclude, we believe that there should be a serious study consideration of an express reference to the principle of no taxation without democratic representation.
Thank you very much, colleagues and Secretariat.
Please.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Chair.
Welcome everyone back to New York.
It is a pleasure to be part of this process and thanks again to the chairs and colleagues for working on this text which has grown and have expanded also the prospects for potential topics to be included in the convention.
Like colleagues, my country also believes that Article 1 and Article 2 should be contained in a preamble that would help to contextualize the technical purposes of the convention as such and help us establish guiding principles and objectives that can help us to develop and implement the early protocols.
Likewise, we believe that from the very outset when we negotiated the resolution in 2022 and the terms of reference, my country has been very clear like other colleagues on the fact that this convention needs to avoid duplications, that it needs to account for the work that has already been carried out in other fora and should not create a process where countries need to revisit and re evaluate previously established treaties.
Likewise, paragraph B of Article 1 talks about establishing a system of governance for international tax cooperation.
If we are to retain this paragraph, it is essential to have a provision that links this to the fact that the convention must account for work that has been done in other fora and its outcome because we cannot have a governance system that does not take into account the work that has already been carried out and continues to be carried out by a number of countries in line with their various commitments.
I also wish to say the following paragraph C six to establish an inclusive, fair, transparent, efficient international tax system, and the negotiation process that we are going to have over the next two weeks must also follow these same principles.
We must have a process where the negotiations transmits the priorities of the various countries to the Bureau, and then the criteria to take up the various priorities must take into account technical merit and contributions to improving the final product and its protocols.
Thank you.
Okay.
India, please.
Thank you, Cole.
Before I begin my comments, I would like to thank the Secretariat and the co leads for the draft that they have produced.
It's a result of a lot of hard work that has been put in by everyone, including all member states, and we've been witness to that in the workstreams and I think that is why we are here.
So as regards the comments that have been made so far and as to the correctness of Article 1 and its language.
India general is in agreement that this article is drafted appropriately.
There have been some concerns being mentioned around the room so far.
One was the relationship of this framework convention with other work that has been done so far, with other commitments that member states have made either bilaterally or multilaterally.
Now, that is indeed something that the Framework Convention and I would say the protocols that we finally negotiate that we'll have to deal with.
But I don't think that the objectives or even for that matter, the principles is the place to do this.
The objectives and principles, they do something very different.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that put together, they are not even the preamble.
If we have to draft a preamble, we cannot replace the objectives and principles with the preamble.
We'll have to do something separately.
Now, what is it that these objectives and principles articles do? They form interpretative anchors for the articles that follow, for the principles and for the way we will draft the other articles of this Framework Convention.
Matters like the relationship of the Framework Convention with other bilateral commitments, other multilateral commitments, they are important.
But the objectives and principles is not the place where that needs to be fleshed out.
There are separate articles which follow in the Framework Convention.
So it cannot be an objective of the Framework Convention that it will, um, I mean, it will not that objective article cannot lay down what it will do, uh, in relation to other work of the other, uh, other work that has been done so far.
That's a methodology.
So I think we have to I mean look at each article separately as to what is its specific task.
And I think the work what the objectives article does has been clearly mentioned, I mean, the language of the objective article serves that purpose.
So I don't think that we need to build in any other uh, any other, uh, goal within the objectives article, that has to be dealt with in an article somewhere else in the Framework Convention.
Also, as also I also don't think that the objectives and principles articles can be done away with, and we have a preamble which will then take care of that.
I think we are supportive of the language that is there in Article 1.
Maybe when we get to Article 2, we'll make more specific comments on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
In the end.
Maybe I'll intervene over here, at least from the various conventions that if have looked at.
Generally, there's a preamble, the objectives and their principles are separate items.
I'm not too sure and clear about this issue of putting the objectives and principles as part of the preamble.
Doesn't mean I won't have any objectives for the framework and won't have any principles governing the framework.
Because the preamble is just an introduction.
The that is what translates into this.
I think maybe as we are making these comments, let's take note of that.
The other thing is that we have an article that looks at relationship between the agreements and other things.
I'm not too sure whether we are saying we should do away with that article and bring it into your objectives.
As we heard during the intersectional session I assume that we agreed that we should have such an article.
And that's what we said earlier.
Then I believe that that discussion comes on.
I'll be grateful to concentrate on the objectives.
Now, that's what we are talking about.
If we have any addition or anything we want to take out, let's be specific on that so that we can look at each of the items as we go on.
Agreed we may have consents, but now Eva, for repeating myself, we believe that now we have the document that we need to say add this, subtract this, or do that as we are getting so that we get focused on this.
Please let's be minded of this and what we want to do.
Thank you.
Japan, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, colleague and Secretariat before preparing the draft.
Japan is aligned with the EU, UK, and Norway.
I believe it's our common understanding that the objective of this Framman Convention is to promote and strengthen international tax cooperation.
We understand that the current draft follows the wording of terms of reference, but to ensure effective international tax cooperation, it is necessary to take existing international frameworks and systems into account.
Therefore, we agree with the United Kingdom suggestion of adding an objective referring to such an important perspective.
Or maybe, for example, in the first line stating, while ensuring consistency with existing national fame and systems.
Thank you.
Thank you, Japan, Zambia, please.
Thank you, Chair, and good morning.
Since this is my first intervention, let me take this opportunity to pass my greetings to fellow delegates, civil society and academia that are all here.
Also, let me congratulate you, Chair, colleague, and the Secretariat for the work that you've done so far, seeing that now we have more of say zero drafts in terms of the July 21st document that is before us.
This shows some progress.
But there's still a lot of work to be done and time is not really with us, and I think it would be important that as we meet this week, we make substantive progress so that as we meet for the sixth session, we should be tying up most of the issues.
Allow me now to speak on behalf of the Africa group.
As the Africa group, we fully support the text as is provided in Article 1.
We also concur with the remarks made by the delegate from India and also to some extent from Russia.
It is our view that the text reflects the objectives as provided in the terms of reference for the framework of Convention.
Therefore, it is our view that we should have the objectives limited to the objectives that are in the terms of reference so that we don't lose sight of what those terms of reference set out for the convention to achieve.
The objectives were substantially negotiated and discussed when developing the terms of, uh, in terms of a reference for the development of the Framework Convention.
Therefore, it's our view that this serves the purpose that we had agreed for it to achieve.
We've also heard of the concerns from other member states of the issue of complementarity We don't think this is the article that needs to deal with how the framework convention relate with other instruments and treaties.
The Framwork convention as provided by you, the colleague, has a specific article 21, and therefore we find it premature to start discussing that item, which has got its own article, which has been provided in the Framework Convention.
As India said, we also of the view that that particular aspect of how the Framework Convention relates to other instruments, whilst it's a very important issue, it's not fit for peoples to be under the objectives.
On the issue of the preamble, we are of the view that the objectives be as is and they shouldn't be moved to the preamble.
The preamble can be there, but probably further to the discussions.
The preamble can mirror the preamble, probably that's in terms of reference because in that preamble, we are guided in terms of how the form of convention should sit and what it should reflect, the number of resolutions that have been put forth in there.
Therefore, it's our view that if we have to come up with a preamble, the preamble should not include the objectives of the principles as set out in this draft.
Thank you.
Thank you, Zambia.
Maliia, please.
Thank you, Chair.
As it's my first time taking the floor, allow me to thank the chair, colleague, Secretariat, and all members for their cooperation and apologies for my voice.
Malisia welcomes the effort and input presented by the Secretariat in facilitating the discussions on WordStream one and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft framework convention dated 21st July 2026.
Malicia acknowledges the convention's objective on inclusiveness, fair allocation of taxing rights, capacity building, and combating tax avoidance.
Militia would like to stress that in drafting the convention, the provisions proposed should be in line and consistent with the objectives under Article 1 and the guiding principles set out in Article 2.
Malisia wishes to highlight the need for explanatory documentations, for example, footnotes for each article in order to avoid misinterpretation and to ensure the uniformity approach.
For instance, further explanation should be provided regarding the concept of fairness as mentioned in Article 1C of the draft.
The zero draft has outlined the relationship with other agreements under Article 21.
However, while member states may wish to adhere to and align existing agreements with the Convention, the draft should honor every member state's sovereign right to determine its tax policies and practices, while also respecting the sovereignty of other member states in such matters as mentioned under Article 2B on Principles.
Matia notes that Article 52 envisages further work by state parties to explore and develop cooperative approaches to the fair allocation of taxing rights.
Hence, Malisia looks forward to further elaboration on this provision.
Maliia would like to seek for confirmation on the limits or flexibility of member states to explore different areas mentioned, for instance, under Article 52, Article 63, and Article 82.
Lisa would also further appreciate clarification on how the proposed articles in the Convention, for instance, Article 8, would complement existing international tax standards and mechanisms, including those developed under the FHTP and the BEPS project.
If the intention is to establish new or parallel frameworks, greater clarity is needed regarding their necessity, the gaps they are intended to address, and how they will interact with existing standards and mechanisms.
This will help ensure complementarity, minimize duplication of efforts, and avoid conflicting obligations from member states.
Masha would also like to propose that the medium of assistance under Article 10 should not be too prescriptive since Article 25 does not permit reservations to be made to the convention.
Furthermore, some methods may not be able to be implemented due to domestic legal framework.
Furthermore, for us, Article 11 provides a very wide scope for exchange of information since it covers tax of every kind without room for reservation.
Even under existing international instruments, the information exchange is still limited to information related to taxes covered by the relevant agreement.
This article should take into consideration the current multilateral, bilateral, or other type of instruments currently in force.
Chair, if you will allow me, I would go on to the other as well.
We would like to comment on the commitments required under Article 12, capacity building.
We require clear and different information regarding each member state's obligation under this convention.
Each member states have already made various commitments under existing international agreements, and greater clarity is needed to avoid potential conflicts.
Article 13 related to the conference of the state parties should consist of balanced and neutral representation from member states, while Article 153 refers to internationally accepted professional standards, but it's unclear which standards are being referred to.
Militia is also of the view that paragraphs 1 and 4 under Article 20 on relations with protocols are not fully aligned because paragraph one is particularly not achievable if a state party is not bound by the protocols.
This convention has to be implemented in its entirety since there's no room for reservation under the proposed article.
A state party is not bound by protocol as mentioned in paragraph four, it may suggest that such parties has the flexibility to depart from the convention in its implementation and elaboration.
Lastly, the draft does not provide room for reservations under Article 25 in respect of any of the proposed article, which may diminish flexibility for member states and could potentially discourage wider voluntary participation and accesssion.
I thank you and thank you for giving me the time.
All right.
Thank you, Militia.
And I think as we mentioned earlier, let's stick to the particular articles we are addressing as we go along so that there'll be time for all the other articles when we get to them.
As I mentioned, we have some limitation in terms of time.
What I also realized that I realize that people members are combining one and two.
Maybe we'll just combine those who speak subsequently can combine the two of them just for ease of work.
Thank you, Bergin, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Coley.
Thank you, Chair and thanks to the Secretariat for all the hard work done on this draft of the Framework Convention.
In addition to Ireland's statement on behalf of the EU member states, Belgium would like to return to the important and interesting point raised by the distinguished delegate of Colombia concerning the importance of national sovereignty and its possible inclusion in the preamble.
We find the reference to sovereignty already in Article 2B, but for us, this doesn't seem to emphasize adequately the importance of sovereignty in tax matters.
Belgium would want to go further and note that other UN conventions often contain a separate provision on this matter.
For example, Article 4 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption is titled Protection of Sovereignty, which expressly safeguards sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and non intervention by other states in domestic affairs.
Given the particular importance of sovereignty in tax matters, we would very much support the inclusion of a separate article 0N the protection of sovereignty in Part one.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vermin Donsia, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Colete.
Indonesia aligned itself with the objective of establishing a truly inclusive, a fair, and transparent and effective international tax cooperation framework that reflect the interests of all member state.
We appreciate the effort of the Colete in advancing the draft tax.
For Indonesia, this framework convention should provide a balanced foundation that strengthen international cooperation while recognizing each state sovereign right to determine its own tax policy and domestic legal system.
In this regard, Indonesia wishes to highlight three points.
First, we attach particular importance to the principle of fair allocation of taxing right International tax rules should better reflect today economic realities, including where markets are located, where revenues are generated, and where value is created.
This is especially relevant in the digital economy where economic participation often occur without physical presence.
The convention should therefore provide a framework that enable more equitable allocation of taxing rights while supporting domestic resource mobilization, particularly for developing countries.
Second colete Indonesia believe that capacity building and technical assistance are indispensable for the effective implementation of the convention.
We also see value in establishing an institutional mechanism under the convention to coordinate this effort and to avoid unnecessary duplication with existing initiative.
Third, while Indonesia support enhanced international cooperation to combat tax avoidance, tax evasion, and tax related illicit financial flows, we consider it equally important that the convention maintain legal certainty, protect taxpayer confidentiality, respect domestic legal framework, and complement rather than duplicate existing international instrument.
Effective cooperation should strengthen implementation while preserving policy space for state.
Cole, Indonesia remain committed to engaging constructively with all delegation to develop a framework convention that is practical, balanced, and future oriented, one that enhance international cooperation while supporting sustainable development and strengthening the ability of all countries, especially developing countries to mobilize domestic resources.
We look forward to working closely with all delegation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Indonesia, first, please.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, colleagues.
Since this is the first time that we're taking the floor today, we'd like to thank you for conveying to us a comprehensive text that demonstrates the importance of the work achieved, but that should hide the fact that a lot remains to be done both in terms of substance as well as the methods of work which has room for improvement, including in terms of transparency and inclusivity.
We also Without needing to repeat it, we'd like to express our support for the Irish statement on behalf of the member states of the European Union.
As far as the Article 1, we want to support the proposal of the United Kingdom.
An international tax cooperation framework exists already, which is based on the work of other forums, as well as bilateral treaties and multiple forms of cooperation.
The objectives of the Framework Convention that brings us together today should be to improve this existing framework, to strengthen it, but not to replace it.
So it seems to us that it's important to clarify that the objectives of this Framework Convention, without harming the elements of the other elements of the convention, it's important to clarify this element of strengthening existing frameworks and ensuring coordination with existing frameworks to strengthen those frameworks.
Thank you.
Thank you, France, Israel, please.
Can you hear me? Thank you.
We thank the chair and the secretaria for providing the full text of the treaty.
For the first time, we can see all the conventions as a whole.
We align with the UK, I Island and the EU and other before us.
The preamble clauses of the convention should reflect the purpose of the convention.
It should include provisions agreed upon by all states.
And also, it is essential to that state sovereignty is reflected in those I think that it should be.
The treaty should aim to establish sound and balanced taxation while avoiding distortions.
We don't want distortions of taxes.
The taxes should be taxes, but not made for other um other things.
We don't want to use them as a as a tool for other things.
We have to make sure also to avoid duplication with other agreements and work that is done in other places.
Thank you.
Thank you, Israel.
Can you please.
Microphone to Kenya, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, co leader of the Secretariat for presenting the current draft.
We support the statement made by the delegate from Zambia on behalf of the Africa group.
Regarding Articles one and two, we also support their inclusion as currently drafted as we note that they reflect the text that has been proposed and that was guided by the terms of reference to be adopted in the Framework Convention itself.
We also support the adoption of the objectives and the principles as separate articles as opposed to placing them in the preamble as has been previously proposed.
As you've stated, colleague, we see this reflected in other framework conventions like the UNF triple C and the Framework Convention on tobacco control.
So we do support their inclusion as two separate articles.
Regarding the inclusion of the terms of reference text under paragraph 22 on existing tools and strengths, the terms of reference has made it very clear that this is an approach to be used by this committee when it comes to developing the framework convention, and it is not an objective of the framework convention itself.
It also makes it clear that the committee is to take what is existing into consideration, not to reflect them or complement them or adopt them, only to consider them.
Um, on the previous comments that the Framework Convention should not replace what is existing.
The objectives are already very clear and they all use the word establish.
This means that what is being developed here does not exist, and we do support that point because we have been seeing that the existing frameworks have not been inclusive and they have not been fair, especially when it comes to developing countries.
So we do not support the proposal to include an additional objective, talking about reflecting or adopting the existing mechanisms.
We have already been guided that this is simply an approach that this committee should use.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Papa Gui please.
Thank you, Cole for the opportunity to take the floor.
Pi thanks the efforts of the co lead in progressing the zero draft since our February meeting.
We also acknowledge the Secretariat for their coordinated efforts since the INC meeting.
We support the current text of Article 1.
We lean towards having a separate preamble of the convention and are open to discussions regarding such a text.
With regard to the relationship of this convention with other agreements, we note there is a specific article for this in the text and I agree with India, Russia, and the Africa group that the objective should not include a reference to this.
With regard to paragraph A of Article 1, we suggest inserting the word system after the words international tax cororation.
Our reasoning is that paragraphs B and C refer to systems.
B refers to a system of governance and C refers to a tax system for sustainable development.
The convention is intended to create a balanced, fair, transparent, and effective tax system first and foremost.
Hence, paragraph A must include the should include the word system to relay this objective at the outset.
Thank you, colleague.
Thank you, P&G or Austria, please.
Thank you.
We would like to express our appreciation to the chair and the co lead and the Secretariat, first of all, for the work done since the last plenary.
Throughout the intersectional process, we have sought to reflect and reiterate well established positions and key concerns in the draft text.
However, these efforts have to a considerable extent not been adequately reflected in our opinion.
We therefore encourage states parties to revisit the original objectives of the underlying resolutions and to ensure that The Framework Convention remains focused on its intended purpose with a view to achieving a balanced and meaningful outcome capable of securing the broadest possible participation.
Thus, we see also the need to underscore the necessity to maximize synergies with existing internationally agreed standards to avoid duplication in the interest of resource efficiency and coherence.
Furthermore, in the light of transparency, we would appreciate a more balanced reflection of comments in the draft documents circulated for discussions in the negotiations.
Concerning Article 2 specifically, we are of the opinion that the Framework Convention needs to mention that efficient international tax corporation needs to recognize and take into account based on the principle that duplication of existing rules and standards should duly be avoided.
This approach to efficient international tax corporation has already been included in the OP six subparagraph D of resolution 787230 and its inclusion in the principles of the Framework Convention should therefore be undisputed in our opinion.
Where member states have well established rules on improving rules in place, the focus of international tax cooperation at the United Nations in this fora should be on improving those rules and identifying issues with these existing rules rather than establishing a parallel set of rules leading to legal uncertainty and costly duplication, which cannot be in our favor.
This is essential to maintain stability and to promote efficiency and effectiveness of the further international tax cooperation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Cheer, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Coates, for giving me the floor and thank you Thank you, Chair and the Secretariat for the work on the draft.
Chucky understands that the objectives and principles are drafted similarly to what the ad hoc committee decided to insert into the terms of reference.
However, we would like to give some comments and suggest amendments to the text reflecting our considerations of how the framework convention might function and the draft text in front of us.
Regarding Part one, in general regarding the sovereignty in tax matters, we would like to align ourselves with the suggestion of the distinguished Codec of Belgium regarding the separate article 0N tax sovereignty in Part one.
Now moving to Article 2, in particular, letter B, we would suggest in wording that the Framework Convention respects states parties duties under international, supranational, and constitutional law because we think that this is an inherent part of the state sovereignty that the Framework Convention respects.
This wording could also be part of the separate article in Part one as proposed by Belgium.
In this manner, we are also supportive of the suggestion of the distinguished alegate of Austria to add no duplication principle in Article 2 to ensure maximum participation.
As regards letter D, we would appreciate information from countries that wish that this principle is in the text of the Femoral Convention, whether they could explain to us how this general principle could guide the Fem Convention.
In relation to letter E, we would like to add the word efficient after the words to ensure because we believe that the results should not only be equitable and effective, but also economically efficient.
In letter E, we would also like to suggest deleting the word landscapes because it seems to be redundant to us.
In relation to letter F, this principle decreases legal certainty because it is not clear how we should influence other provisions of the Framework Convention.
As the distinguished delegate of Norway mentioned, generally, the risk of different interpretation, it seems to us that in particular, the question of fairness in allocation of taxing is the one that allows for divergent interpretation, and we should deal with this issue elsewhere to avoid decreasing legal certainty.
This applies, especially if the principles are supposed to function as interpretive anchor as mentioned by the distinguished delegate of India.
Given the current discussion, we would also like to ask the code editor and when the INC might discuss the preamble of the Framework Convention.
Last, we have a general minor point regarding the drafting of the Framework Convention because the text currently contains wording such as states parties, state parties, parties, and member states, and we think that this language should be aligned.
Thank you very much for considering our suggestions.
Thank you.
Coda, please.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, everybody.
I will be speaking in French.
Co D'ivoire.
I'd like to thank the Secretariat for all the work it has done, allowing us to have a comprehensive text which will be considered examined throughout the session.
My delegation would like to also express wholehearted support for the position of the African group, which was also supported by Kenya in particular, and to some extent by Russia and by Zambia.
Core D'ivoire would also like to express its support for the draft of Article 1 as presented to us.
We think that this article very clearly sets out the objectives of this convention.
Which were established by the terms of reference.
In fact, the terms of reference are roadmap, our guide so that there's a clear risk of introducing among the objectives of the convention objectives that were not envisioned in the terms of reference.
There's a whole range of objectives that we could have included, but our work is established by a framework which was determined by the terms of reference, and it would not be appropriate to stray from that.
As for the proposal of inclusion of other objectives, namely sovereignty of states and the links to all the existing tax frameworks.
I believe that the various articles of the convention are already focusing on these issues so that we don't think it would be a good idea to address this matter in the first article that deals with the objectives.
Likewise, we think that the preamble is not really the place to speak of principles and objectives.
The preambles goal is to establish the context and similar to other framework conventions that have already been developed and adopted by the United Nations.
We think that in addition to the preambular, we need an article that focuses on objectives and another article 0N the principles.
Cor D'ivoire would like to, in conclusion, express once again its support for the process of negotiation of the Framework Convention and its additional protocol, as well as our commitment to work with all delegations and the Secretariat to achieve the goals of this committee.
Thank you very much.
Mercy.
Thank you, Côte D'ivoire.
Senegal, please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Co chair.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Congratulations to the Secretary for the work that is already done by presenting to us a text that will kick off our discussion on the substance.
As we discuss the substance, I think it's very important for us to have a very pragmatic approach, so as not to fall into the trap of certain types of discussions.
I'll start by expressing our support for the African group for the comments made, which explains our support for the objectives and principles.
These objectives and principles flow from the terms of reference, which today are the very reason for our presence in this room.
And as mentioned, nothing was changed in these principles and uh objectives.
I think from the terms of reference, it's a good starting point as long as we all agree that it's important to have the terms of reference and the terms of reference were adopted, so I think we can streamline our use of time not to focus too much on this.
Now, as far as the preamble, it's already touched upon in the various provisions.
It was already mentioned that the preamble is already based on certain previous texts.
For example, transparency is already mentioned in the objectives.
We have certain resolutions that speak of strengthening cooperation and tax cooperation, which also was mentioned in the objectives and in the principles, we also have resolution that mentions mobilization of resources.
You can also find in the last sentence of the objectives, all these elements are already reflected here.
Maybe the preamble, in fact, having a preamble would be redundant.
As far as the interaction with other instruments, I believe that it's also very important to follow the logic of the convention because interaction with others have already been defined in one of the articles, Article 21, and this could be better highlighted when we actually get into the technical discussions.
That is when we can discuss the interaction with other conventions as far as aspects related to synergies and complementarity with existing tools, again, we need a practical approach.
When we get into the substance, for example, Article 22 of the terms of reference mentions this, it's in the course of the work, but now initially we're establishing a framework that they can mention when we get into the practical aspects, for example, on lessons learned and scope, these are technical aspects and Then we'll discuss how we can make this text more useful.
The same thing applies to the issues of sovereignty.
All the principles and objectives that we have seek to make it possible to strengthen tax cooperation and also allow each jurisdiction to exercise its sovereignty.
If the principles mentioned in this convention, in case they would not be respected in these negotiations or future ones.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay.
So we're going to break for 5 minutes just to allow everyone to move his legs and we're going to come back in 5 minutes exactly.
So 5 minutes coffee break.
I police department October I don't the Okay.
Welcome back, everybody.
We can quickly settle down.
We now have the distinguished delegate from Lazenburg please for the moment.
Before Lazenbg comes in, sorry, the chair will make a statement.
Oh, sorry.
Before we continue the discussion, I would like just to let everyone how I see it.
This is my perspective about the discussion for Article 1 and Article 2, which is objectives and principles.
We need to keep in mind that the objectives and the principles, they are leverage, they are extracted exactly from the OR and the OR has been adopted by a resolution from the General Assembly meeting.
And then that means that this resolution is giving the mandate to the current committee what they should do? What is their objectives and what's the guiding principles in doing these objectives, and deciding now to go and amend or do any changes in the objectives and principles, We create a conflict with the General Assembly resolution mandating this committee with its homework that they should do.
Then we have two conflicting documents that we are requiring the General Assembly to adopt.
So maybe we need to consider in the discussion that principles and objectives It's a little bit difficult to do any changes for them because this may take us in a different loop of what an instrument and what objectives should be guiding given that we have already a general assembly resolution already from this.
That's the reason why we are just extracted the objectives and principles to be as the first part of this convention and the guiding for it.
Please consider that already we have an instrument stating this and giving this and in the R, you have the objectives, if you're going to read the Chapter of the article 0F Objectives, you have the convention objectives should be.
This is the objective stated in that R adopted by the General Assembly.
So what if we're going to change it right now? We had to go back and change the TR, of course, and the R is mandating this committee to do this.
So just to bring it under your eyes to consider why we are moving on with the discussion.
Thank you.
In addition to the reason why we opened it up was just to be sure that what is in the TR is the way it's being reflected, not necessarily to add to it.
But then we have something.
So what we have is how it's being reflected in what we have.
Just to give us that direction as well.
Lazenberg please.
Thank you, co facilitator for those clarifications and thank you, Chair for the explanation.
We also thank the Secretariat and colleagues for their efforts over the past few months.
Luxebourg will be brief.
We will support the observations already formulated by the chair and the reps of the EU, Belgium and France, among others.
We believe that the Framework Convention must remain a framework instrument with high level provisions that will also allow for the respect of the national sovereignty of member states.
It must also account for existing international norms and standards to avoid legal uncertainty, as well as duplications and overlap that could create difficulties For example, when it comes to the interpretation of bilateral tax agreements.
Finally, we stress the importance of ensuring a transparent and inclusive process, and we believe that when positions differ, the negotiation text must present various options in an equitable and clear manner so that we can all have discussions on the same basis.
Thank you.
Thank you, Lasenburg.
Nigeria please.
Thanks, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.
And colleague, thank you so much for the very wonderful work that has been done to bring this one to develop this draft, which is for consideration by the committee.
I think the African group has spoken and I also want to reiterate that that my comment is also to further emphasize what Samba presented on behalf of African group and supported by Kenya, Syria alone and other colleagues, including Senegal who spoke ahead of me.
Co chair and colleagues, I think the time of reference is our guide for this assignment.
And that we have INC is because we have a body that has set us up, and the terms of what we are supposed to do, what we are supposed to deliver had been given onto us.
Our understanding of a term of reference is that it defines the purpose, the scope, our responsibilities of a committee.
So by that, the purpose, the scope, and responsibility of INC, this negotiating committee has been so defined by the terms of reference.
And we will take a look at the objective and the purpose as we have it in Articles one and two.
It speaks succinctly and captures exactly as we have it on the terms of reference.
For us, we see the terms of reference as the mandate or if you like, as the Constitution that has been given to us.
By which we are going to we are expected to operate.
Changing it, amending it in any form will mean that we are going ultra the mandate that has been given to us.
So as Nigeria and of course, as Africn group, we believe that Articles one and two are already in tandem with the terms of reference, and we want to encourage that we stand by it in view of the fact that there are a whole lot of articles that we still have to deliberate upon and time, essentially of the Sss.
So Mr.
Collet for us we see this as good enough.
Articles one and two, and on behalf of Niger and the entire Afrhan group, I also submit, thank you.
Thank you, Nigeria, Italy, please.
Thank you, Chair.
And a To pursue our discussion on a more practical basis and refer to a legal text.
We appreciate it a lot.
We would like to align ourselves with a statement read by Ireland, the name on the 27 EU member state.
We also would like to reiterate our engagement in the UN process, which must be inclusive, transparent, and based on a cooperative approach aimed at the establishment high level principle framework.
On the discussion of Article 1 and two, we acknowledge that these articles are directly derived from the TOR, which unfortunately had been unapproved by consensus.
We have all discussion about the right places to put some principles, some approaches, and in the end, we have this forum which guide us.
But we believe that the success of the Framework Convention depends on the broad acceptance, which has to take into account the interest of all delegation and allows them to participate effectively on an equal footing.
We heard a widespread favor to maintain Article 1 and two in the text of the convention, and we saw in some precedent that this has been done in other framework convention.
But we have example in treaty law where objective and principle are indeed in the preamble.
In any case, we would like to stress the importance to have a preamble, which according to the Vienna Convention on treaty law provide the context for interpretation purposes, while the preamble of the TOR just make a list of document which govern the process, but do not provide the context that we would ask for.
In general, we believe that starting to establish the share interpretation guidance at this stage by the INC would help to prevent divergent possible domestic interpretation in the future and reduce the risk of overlapping or conflicting taxing claims.
We would like to align ourselves with the comment made by UK and OE and others, and we ask for an explicit reference on the existing tool, strengths, expertise, and complementarities which are available in the multiple institutions involved in tax cooperation and international, regional and local levels where they work well.
Following paragraph 22 of the TOR, which is indeed an approach, but it is very important for us.
The Framework Convention will be not introduced in a vacuum, but will complement, hopefully filling the gaps that the system of governance already is in place, and we would like to see an explicit reference of that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Italy, Brazil, please.
Good morning, and good morning, colleagues.
We We have been through this discussion several times and there are elements mixed in most of these articles.
There are principles mixed in the objectives, there are procedural rules in the objectives and in the principles.
But all in all, we are happy with the text.
We support the text.
It could be adjusted.
We could have the objective having just one paragraph, paragraph A would be enough.
Just paragraph B would be enough, or maybe even just paragraph C would be enough.
To cover what we intend to do here.
I think we are in this environment, sharing bounded rationality.
We have a great understanding of the expectations and how we will behave, how much we insist in positions that are already covered in other forum or the rules.
We know that, know our limits, how much you push in each direction in each time and having that in mind, I don't see the need or even consistency to have a reference to other forums here.
I think that I don't think it would fit well to begin with.
It would put us in a subordinate second role in our job in the future.
Complementarity, I think the understanding behind what we are doing here is that we intend to revisit some rules, not just the gaps, But of course, we will proceed with due caution with a precautionary approach to it.
We will interact.
We will discuss will grow legitimacy and consensus as much as possible in each proposal that we will develop in the future in each protocol.
Having that in mind, uh, we support the wording as it is for the objectives.
It could be different, but it's, uh, It addresses the goals that we have in mind and how we perceive ourselves as developing our activities in the future.
I don't see weaknesses that are so concerning that could create so much uncertainty there.
In relation to the second article, once again, it includes a lot of principles of different nature governing, uh, cooperation itself and in some cases governing what could be domestic policies, when we say about simple rules, that also it's a type of tax policy principle that it's mainly targeted at domestic rules, um, We understand that the article itself could have more principles mentioned it, but we are happy with it.
If we are reopening to mention more principles, we'll be happy to include a few more, including progressivity and broad based and so on.
But again, for the time being and for the position so far, we would support the wording as it stands.
Thank you.
Thank you, President of Sweden, please.
Thank you for giving me the floor and thank you, co lead and the Secretariat for presenting the updated draft.
In addition to the statement made by Ireland, we also want to echo previous speakers such as Belgium that mentioned the importance of respecting sovereignty in tax matters.
It's important that member states has the sovereign right to decide its own policies and practices.
We do also want to express our appreciation for inclusion of subparagraph two C on international human rights law in this context, as well as subparagraph two D on sustainable development, which in our view could be strengthened by adding also a reference to gender equality.
Finally, we also support the question raised by Czech Republic on when any discussions on their preamble will take place.
Thank you.
Thank you, Iran Islavic Republic, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Collen Rahim.
As many distinguished colleagues have rightly emphasized, for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the principle of state sovereignty remains a fundamental consideration in any international undertaking, including the United Nations Framework Convention on the International Tax Cooperation.
This principle is dispensable and should be duly reflected in our consideration of the whole documents initiating from Articles one and two.
This regard.
We also wish to recall the important clarification made by the distinguished chair of the committee at the outset of today's meeting, namely that the outcome of this decisions is that intended to constitute a clean or final text.
Allow me to further underline that any eventual final text of the convention will in any event remain subject to the necessary approval of an endorsement by the competent domestic authorities of each member state in accordance with its respective constitutional and legal processes.
Therefore believe that the discussion of Article 1 and two should proceed with due regard for these fundamental considerations, ensuring full respect for the sovereign quality of states and preserving the authority of each state to complete its domestic procedures before assuming any international legal obligations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Eso, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our gratitude goes to everyone who has worked hard to bring this text on the table in time for the fifth session.
At some point, I thought that I might lower my flag, especially after hearing that we can't change anything that was already in the terms of reference that inevitably raises the question why we are even discussing this text.
And But since we are, and I totally agree with my Brazilian colleague here, we seem to be getting stuck in this conversation, and it probably will not be the last time when we return to the objectives and principles.
It might be, as my colleague from Italy mentioned, because the DOR was not a consensus document, and there are several countries that do deem that it is important to mention the work of the other forum in principles as well.
Just from purely lawyers perspective, I wouldn't do it under the principles.
But if I look at the text that we already have in Article 2 and it does list several elements that we need to take into account, then It wouldn't really do any harm if we would mention the existing work in an international tax among the principles as well.
I have to draw a parallel here with subparagraph D, which pretty much copies Article 4.
I do recognize that we have this text in the TOR, but just to illustrate that from our perspective, it wouldn't hurt to add the reference to the existing instruments and work in another forum here as well because we do have an example in sustainable development in subparagraph D, which is then replicated in Article 4.
There is a certain repetition.
Also, I would like to support what my colleague from Belgium has said regarding the separate article 0N sovereignty, and we also find the questions presented by Czech very relevant.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Republic of Korea, please.
Thank you, Colleague, for giving me the floor.
Good morning, colleague, distinguished guests and colleagues.
As this is Korea's first intervention at this plenary meeting, we would like to begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to the colleagues and the Secretariat for their dedicated efforts in preparing for this colleague draft.
As for Article 1 on objectives, we align with the views expressed by the EU, the UK, Norway, and France and others.
We believe it would be beneficial to clarify that the Framework Convention should build upon and complement existing bilateral and multilateral frameworks for international tax cooperation rather than replace them.
Such clarification would help ensure coherence with existing international tax architecture, avoid unnecessary duplication of rules and mechanisms, and enhance legal certainty and the effective implementation of the convention.
In this regard, we support including language recognizing the role of existing bilateral and multilateral frameworks in achieving the objectives of this convention.
Lastly, we also echo Belgium and others who recognize the importance of respecting the tax 70 of states.
We believe it is an important guiding principle for effective international tax cooperation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Philippines, please.
First of all, thank you to the chair and our colleagues at the Secretariat and the Workstream leads for our work in the past month.
The Philippines strongly supports Article 1, establishing an inclusive UN led tax governance framework ensures all nations have an equal voice in shaping global tax rules.
Noting this, we are agreeable with the inclusion of paragraphs A, B, and C as they are aligned with the TOR and they meet the requirements of defining why the Framework Convention is being entered into.
Currently worded, the article covers items very much important to the Philippines such as establishing an equitable and effective international tax system for sustainable development, strengthening domestic resource mobilization and the fairness of international tax rules.
Also in Article 1, we support India, Russia, the Africa Group, Zambia, Papua New Guinea, on the non inclusion of provisions on complementarity synergies and on current frameworks.
On Article 2, we fully endorse the principles outlined in the said article, most especially the principles on national tax sovereignty and universality, recognizing different needs and priorities and capacities of each country.
The inclusion of certain principles of simplicity, transparency, and flexibility of rules are essential to ensure efficient tax administration and ease the compliance burden on taxpayers and revenue authorities alike.
We agree with the previous statements on fixing what the term they use to refer to parties of the Framework Convention.
This one is a continuing comment all throughout the text of the Framework Convention.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Auger, please.
President, I want to chose.
Thank you.
Chair.
First of all, I want to thank the co facilitators and the secretary for the draft proposed test.
We also applaud the efforts and the progress achieved so far.
As far as Article 1 and two of the Framework Convention, Regarding the objectives and principles, we support the statement made by Zambia on behalf of the African group, but also by other colleagues from other countries, such as Senegal, Nigeria, India, Russia, and co Dvore on these issues, we think that we have discussed extensively principles and objectives of the convention in elaborating the terms of reference of the Framework Convention.
Bearing this in mind, we support the text proposed because it faithfully reflects what we discussed at length and debated during the work on the terms of reference.
As far as existing norms or rules, and the interaction of this convention with other instruments.
I just recall that we're here because of some of the difficulties raised by countries and difficulties and challenges raised by countries demonstrate that not everything is perfect with existing instruments and that we need to work in a transparent, inclusive way to remedy some of these problems.
The process that the Framework Convention must set up is a process that is supposed to complete and strengthen existing instruments and improve some of the existing imbalances.
Bearing this in mind, we support the text proposed for Article 1 oh two.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Un Republic of Toria, please.
Thank you, colleague, Tanzan Alliance itself with the statement delivered by Zambia on behalf of the AfC Group.
We also associate ourselves with the views expressed by India, Kenya, Papa New Guinea, Cordivo, Senegal, Nigeria, and Nigeria in support of retaining the current structure and the substance of Articles one and two.
Cole, in our view, the current drafting of Articles one and two is fully aligned with paragraph seven of the terms of reference, which clearly sets out the objective of this process at the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on international tax cooperation.
The mandate given to this committee is not to merely supplement, mirror, or restate existing instruments, but to develop a framework convention that responds to the gaps, priorities, and ambitions that lead member states to establish this intergovernmental process.
We therefore support retaining the existing draft of Res one and two.
These provisions reflect issues that were substantially discussed during the terms of reference process.
In which all delegations fully participated and which were ultimately adopted.
At this stage, we should be careful not to reopen discussions that we are already settled through that process, particularly where the presents faithfully reflects the agreed mandate.
Tanzania also agrees with the point made by previous delegates that paragraph 22 of the terms of reference is placed under the section on approach and time frame.
In our understanding, colleague, that placement was not a mistake.
Paragraph 22 provides guidance and was not intended to require the convention to inherit the scope and limitations of existing frameworks.
For these reasons, Tanner support the African group position that preamble, Articles one and two, should be retained as currently drafted.
I thank you.
Thank you, Azerbajad, please.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Covalid.
Azerbaijan welcomes the UN Framework Convention on international tax Cooperation.
We consider this convention an important opportunity to establish more incus fair and effective international tax system that reflects the priorities and capacity of all countries, particularly developing countries.
In this context, we would like to offer brief comments on Article 1 and two.
Regarding Article 1, Azerbjan supports the objective of establishing inclusive, fair, and effective international tax cooperation framework, we suggest emphasizing that convention should enhance domestic resource mobilization while ensuring tax certainty, preventing both double and double taxation and non taxation and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens.
Regarding Article 2, Azerbjan supports the principle of universality.
Tax sovereignty and fair allocation of taxing rights.
At the same time, convention should fully recognize the different capacity of developing countries and provide for practical proportional and administrable rules.
We also suggest that principles expressly refer to consensus based cooperation, legal certainty, and the protection of confidential taxpayer information.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Please.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr.
Cody for giving me the floor again.
Chia, just briefly we wanted to react to the interpretation of the terms of reference in relation to the current discussion.
The terms of reference states that the Framework Convention should follow certain objectives and principles enumerated there.
In our opinion, the terms of reference are simply issuing a recommendation to the INC.
Otherwise, the General Assembly would use the words shall or must, which would apply an obligation to use certain text as we discussed a few years ago.
Hence, Cechia believes that in relation to Article 1 and two, the General Assembly appreciates the fact that the INC should use the text of the terms of reference as a starting point for the negotiations.
But the INC is not obliged to stick to the wording used in the terms of reference if a justifiable need arises.
Otherwise, we would also be asking the same question as the distinguished delegate from Estonia about the usefulness of the discussion of Article 1 and two if the resolution would not allow the INC to change the text.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
I, please.
Thank you, Chair and thank you for giving me the floor a second time since the last time we spoke.
It was only in the context of Article 1, so we decided we can use that to take a second shot.
In fact, the chair had pointed out that there is a certain structure that has been decided in the terms of reference, which includes objectives and principles.
Now, that respecting that structure is not a yoke that we are struggling under.
There is an operational logic to that.
So now speaking only in the context of Article 2.
Now, this is a framework convention that deals with tax matters.
Now, if we look at each of these sub paragraphs from A to I, These are not preambular text.
Each of these points can be linked to an actual deliverable in the context of a tax document.
We are all tax professionals or people who work in the tax department in this room.
If you look at each of these, we can connect it with an actual deliverable related to tax.
Therefore, these points which are in Article 2, these are not a preambular text.
A preambular text on the other point, on the other hand would only provide a context.
It would provide the motivation.
It would provide a shared understanding as to why parties would come together to do some work.
Now, as the distinguished delegate from Italy had mentioned that the preamble of the Framework Convention, what was there in the General Assembly, resolution, it mentioned four documents, but apart from mentioning listing out those four documents, it said that the text of the Framework Convention should reflect inter alia the following General Assembly resolutions.
That means that everything that was there within those resolutions must be reflected in the Framework Convention.
Principles of sovereignty, principles of taking into consideration the work of other organizations.
The work that has been done so far has been reflected in Resolution 78230.
Therefore, even for that matter, if there were no specific article in the Framework Convention, it's already taken into account that we will respect principles of sovereignty.
We will respect the concept of taking into account the work of other organizations.
Therefore, we don't see any necessity to replace the Article 1 and Article 2, with a preamble.
We can have a preamble because that's something probably we will have at some point of time, but that does not mean that we need to disrupt the structure.
Because as I said, each of these items within these two articles and also Article 2, they reflect an actual tax related deliverable.
Therefore, having a preamble is one thing.
But that does not necessarily mean that we should disrupt the structure that we have all agreed to for this Framework Convention.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ghana, please.
Thank you, co chair and colleagues.
We want to thank you for the opportunity to check out the floor.
As these are first, I would want to congratulate you and also commend you for the great work you've done with the Secretariat concerning the drafts that we have today.
Ghana Alliance was the position of Africa group as delivered by Zambia and echoed by Kenya, Cordiv, Nigeria, and other African countries, as well as India, Russia, Brazil, and Philippines in supporting the current texts of Articles one and two, as they are.
These articles clearly outlined objectives and the principles as were established in the adopted terms of reference.
Ghana is mindful of the overall intended outcome of this Framework Convention, which is to establish effective international tax cooperation to deal with the existing tax related challenges, and that is not meant to complementary to any other existing instrument.
As has been noted by the distinguished delegates from India and the College, the relationship of these FC and other existing agreements is clearly set out in the various articles in the convention.
Therefore, we believe that the current tax as presented in one and two articles are sufficient.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you again, Germany, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Colet.
Let me say, first of all, I'm very delighted to see everyone again.
Germany also appreciates the effort and the hard work of the Secretariat and you Mr.
Colet in preparing this session.
It is really encouraging to witness a steady progress in our work.
Having said that, let me jump into Article 1 and two.
From Germany's perspective, the Framework Convention must remain a genuine framework instrument, establishing common objectives and guiding principles rather than detailed legal obligations, the scope and implementation of which also remains uncertain.
In light of this, the coexistence of Article 1 and two on one side and Article 4 through 11 on the other gives already rise to some concerns in itself.
Some subject matters, as was already pointed out by Estonia, if I'm not mistaken, sustainable development, for example, are found in principles and commitments and are hard to distinguish from each other.
At the same time, the current draft continues to contain numerous binding obligations without sufficiently defining their legal content or the concrete actions expected from state parties.
Such provisions do not provide the legal certainty required of an international convention and therefore, in our view, not acceptable.
We share the view that the convention should operate in a complementary manner and should not create uncertainty regarding existing legal obligations.
Yet the relationship between the Framework Convention and existing international agreements, including bilateral tax treaties and established multilateral instruments remains insufficiently clarified.
Existing international standards and mechanisms should be expressly recognized and relied upon wherever they already achieve the objectives pursued by the convention.
Duplication of existing mechanisms should be avoided.
We therefore echo the voices calling for additional objectives and principles to this effect.
In reaction to some of the previous speakers, the fact that the relationship with other agreements is already addressed in Article 21, in our view, not preclude it from being anchored in Article 1 and two.
Just as one would also not argue to delete the provision of Article 2 paragraph F, for example, simply because Article 5 already exists.
And as the distinguished delegate from India said previously, Articles one and two are supposed to provide an overarching interpretative anchor.
I by contrast, Article 21 is a provision that is rather supposed to translate these objectives and principles into legal effects.
I also agree with distinguished delegates from Cechia and Estonia.
It is true that the terms of reference guide the INC to take into account the work of other for potential synergies.
As a means of an approach to our negotiations.
But we are currently in the very midst of these deliberations and the terms of reference do not preempt the outcome of these deliberations.
In particular, they also do not preclude us from identifying the necessity and merits of a provision that addresses complementarity and coherence either as an objective within the Framework Convention or as a guiding principle for the work to be conducted on its basis.
Thank you.
Thank you, Saudi Arabia, please.
Thank you, colleague and thanks to the Secretariats for their hard work on this draft.
Saudi Arabia acknowledges the different views expressed.
However, we support the articles to remain as drafted.
The current texts reflect extensive discussions during the negotiations of the terms of reference with carefully balanced compromises.
We believe that those discussion, especially the discussions that extended beyond the tax experts to other relevant subject matter experts, should not be reopened or revisited for those matters.
And in our view, the current draft provides an appropriate foundation for the Framework Convention.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's go back I've spoken.
Let's see.
How many minutes do you have left? Okay.
If you indulge me, Meskow in Belgium, Bukinfaso hasn't spoken yet, so they can speak and then we'll take it to you.
So Bukinamfaso, please, they will do Meskow in Belgium.
To Buka Faso, please.
Mate.
Thank you.
Burkina Faso would like to congratulate the Secretariat for the work that was done that has made it possible to have this draft.
Burkina Faso aligns itself with a statement made by Zambia on behalf of the African group, supported by countries such as Codivir, Senegal, Algeria, Nigeria.
India.
Our delegation is in favor of maintaining Article 1 and two as drafted because this is a provision that pertains to the principles and objects and is in line with what was already agreed on in the terms of reference and that was discussed previously.
For Burkina, these articles confirm an inclusive approach as far as adopting the convention.
The provisions put raising mobilization of resources based on the principle of equality.
Also, the allocation of resources should take into account the sovereignty of various states, which is important.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vukinafs Mexico, please.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Coley, I'll switch to English for this intervention.
I just want to thank colleagues around the room for their perspectives on what we should do with Articles one and two.
I think it would be remiss of me not to say that we've had this conversation for the past 3.5 years from the resolution to the terms of reference to the part of discussing the convention and the protocols, and if I'm not mistaken, The approach that's been taken has been normally that the text that we adopt previously will remain unchanged and then we go to the next part of the process and then we change it.
I understand that in the terms of reference, there were some provisions in the resolution in 2023 that did not make it to the terms of reference, particularly Those on the focus on sustainable development and to combat IFs, then we came to the room.
The argument was that sustainable development and IFFs were too broad a term to discuss protocols related to them.
Then we've had the discussion on sustainable development.
What does that mean and how do tax experts and frameworks take that into consideration.
The approach has been a little bit inconsistent in our opinion, but we respect the fact that because of the difficulty, of providing objectives and principles for the convention.
At this moment, the decision was made to go back to the agreed language from the terms of reference, which were very carefully negotiated.
In that sense, we also would like to agree with other colleagues that just because there's an article that relates to some of the principles and objectives, that should not preclude us from also reflecting some of these elements as principles.
As my colleague from Italy, put forward, I think that for us we are also going to submit adding part OP 22 of Article 4 of the terms of reference as a principle.
We're talking about universality in approach.
Why not talk about complementarity with the work of other fora.
Uh, for us, we believe that this is an integral part of the negotiation and also of the outcome.
For some of us, the decision to ratify the protocol or the convention will rely ultimately on the complementarity we see with the other tax treaties that are negotiated outside of the UN.
If that allows us to move forward, then all the better to have this safeguard, if you want to call it, as part of the principles.
Then on the discussion on whether or not we should repeat some of the principles as articles, then You know, the mention of sustainable development being one of the articles outside of the principles, we fought very hard to keep that in because it's the mandate of the resolution.
But if the argument is that we should not be duplicating, then I would be remiss to say that at some point we also wanted an article 0N human rights.
So I would not want us to go through that road in which we're saying that we cannot have duplication in principles and articles.
We should just find the right synergy so that they both reflect each other.
I would also highlight that H, also in taxpayers and government certainty relates to allocation of taxing rights and other articles and provisions.
The principles are supposed to serve as a general guide on what the articles in the convention should refer to.
So in this regard, we would ask other colleagues to also at least indulge the conversation of, if not modifying the Article 12 and not going back to the preamble discussion, to at least reinforce Article 21 by bringing in OP 22 of Article 4 in the terms of reference.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Berg, you have about a minute.
We actually 1:00, so we'll lose interpretation in a few seconds, so please be sloppy.
Okay.
Thank you.
I can say briefly, we want to align with what the distinguished Delegate of Mexico, Italy, Estonia, and Cechia said before us and we believe we are here to negotiate still so we can still make changes and proposals like the proposal to add to put the principle of national sovereignty in a separate article as has been done in the UN Convention Against Corruption, in the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.
I think a cornerstone of international tax cooperation is national sovereignty and the protection of our national sovereignty on the tax matters.
Thank you.
Thank you, Belgium.
Now for the governmental groups and stakeholders, we'll take you immediately after lunch, then we'll move on to the other articles.
So with that, I'll hand it to the chair.
Thank you.
Thanks for the discussion.
We're going to convene in the same room this afternoon at 3:00.
Have a good lunch break.
See you.
Bye.