Kicking The Can Down The Road? Negotiations of the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its Protocols

By Mary Ongore, Senior Legal Manager (Sustainable Finance) and Yogi Bratajaya, Legal Fellow

Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

The fourth session of negotiations on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (Framework Convention) took place in New York from 2 to 13 February 2026. The programme of work covered negotiations on the Framework Convention itself, as well as the two early protocols addressing cross-border services and tax dispute resolution.

The session made notable progress, building on the previous session held late last year in Nairobi. The updated text of the draft now includes provisions on Exchange of Information, referring to the cross‑border sharing of information between tax administrations to detect and prevent tax evasion, and on Capacity Building and Technical Assistance, which aims to strengthen the ability of tax authorities from developing countries to participate effectively in international tax cooperation and combat illicit financial flows. A central issue that emerged during the negotiations was the tension between adopting a comprehensive, highly prescriptive Framework Convention and adopting a high-level instrument that leaves substantive details to be developed in subsequent protocols. This blog explores one of the emerging debates over the structure of the Convention and unpacks its implications.

At ILP, our mission is to advance economic and environmental justice. Our Sustainable Finance team in particular works to ensure that developing countries secure a fair outcome in international negotiations, including those under the Framework Convention. We view these negotiations as a critical opportunity to promote meaningful reform of the international tax system and to move toward a more balanced allocation of taxing rights and have supported a number of partners who are engaged in this process.

Contesting the Nature of the Framework Convention

Paragraph 14 of the Terms of Reference envisages the negotiation of separate legally binding protocols. Two early protocols are being negotiated alongside the Framework Convention, while additional thematic protocols may be developed at a later stage. These future protocols remain open-ended in subject matter, provided they fall within the commitments established by the Framework Convention. Importantly, however, the protocols are optional: States that ratify the forthcoming Framework Convention will have to additionally accept whether to be bound by the provisions of the protocols.

The question of whether the Framework Convention should contain detailed, operational rules or instead articulate broad principles—leaving substantive matters to the protocols—arose repeatedly during the negotiations. This debate was particularly prominent in discussions concerning mutual administrative assistance, exchange of information, sustainable development, and the fair allocation of taxing rights.

Some countries advocated for high-level commitments rather than detailed operational provisions. On the other hand, a group of countries argued that leaving most substantive content to the protocols would be insufficient. Still others sought a middle ground: embedding guiding principles in the Convention while preserving flexibility to address technical detail and future developments through protocols.

These tensions are not unique to these negotiations. Some framework instruments only govern procedural and institutional matters, while others adopt a more hybrid approach, stipulating detailed substantive legal rules in the framework and delegating only specific issues to protocols. An example of this hybrid approach is the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. While not explicitly titled a framework convention or agreement, the convention sets substantive rules on the transboundary movement of wastes, whereas the specific question of liability was transferred to a subsequent protocol. 

Why this Debate Matters: Implications for Global Tax Justice

The choice between a high-level or more prescriptive Framework Convention has significant consequences to advance a just global tax framework.

Countries and tax justice advocates supporting a more substantive Convention argue that legal certainty requires clarity and specificity. A binding Framework Convention, they contend, should anchor political commitments and establish minimum standards that State parties are legally obliged to respect and implement. Excessively broad language may create ambiguity and weaken enforceability. If all substantive elements are deferred to optional protocols, the final Convention risks lacking practical effect.

In contrast, proponents of a high-level approach argue that this is particularly appropriate where issues are complex or politically sensitive. According to them, a principles-based Framework Convention can provide flexibility, accommodate evolving economic realities, and allow consensus to develop gradually. This may be especially important in the absence of strong political agreement at the outset.

However, negotiating protocols can be equally challenging. Deferring substantive issues to future protocols does not eliminate political disagreement, it merely postpones it. Moreover, because protocols are optional, there is a risk that even if agreement is reached, uptake and implementation may be uneven, limiting their impact. Hence, securing a robust Framework Convention that contains legally binding, substantive obligations on matters of tax governance, rather mere high-level commitments, provides an invaluable opportunity to rebalance global tax norms and advance tax justice.

Next steps for the Framework Convention

In practice, consensus will be required at some stage—either during the negotiation of the Framework Convention itself or later during the development of the protocols. The decision that will be made by the negotiators on the scope and nature of the Framework Convention will determine whether the legal instrument becomes a transformative tool for global tax justice or remains largely aspirational.

At ILP, we believe these negotiations present an important opportunity to rebalance international tax rules in a way that benefits both developing and developed countries. A successful outcome would be the development of a prescriptive Framework Convention that contains detailed substantive tax rules which fairly allocate taxing rights and reflect both developed and developing countries’ needs.

We continue to support stakeholders participating in this process through capacity building and technical assistance. For further information on how we can assist, please get in touch: contact@internationallawyersproject.org