When delegates gathered in February to decide on the topic for the second early protocol of the Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, the choice of dispute prevention and resolution came quickly. Many described it as less conflictual than other options on the table – a perception that helped build consensus.

But “less conflictual” doesn’t mean simple, and it certainly doesn’t mean the stakes are low. With the third round of negotiations approaching in Nairobi this November, attention is turning to what Protocol 2 will actually deliver.

Tax disputes have become more frequent as the number of cross-border transactions has grown, yet there is a perception that the mechanisms available to resolve them remain inadequate, particularly for lower-income countries. Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP) under bilateral tax treaties are often slow, costly, and heavily dependent on administrative capacity that many countries simply don’t have.

Protocol 2 presents an opportunity to build more effective and equitable systems, but difficult questions remain. Should the protocol improve existing bilateral mechanisms like MAP and arbitration, or establish new multilateral approaches? Will it cover all cross-border tax disputes, or only those arising under the Framework Convention itself?

Next to resolving disputes, initiatives to prevent them in the first place are on the agenda, as well, among them advance pricing agreements, joint audits, better access to transfer pricing data and simplified standards.

In Part 3 of our UN Tax Convention reading list (read Part 1 on the UN process and institutional context and Part 2 on Protocol 1), we bring together key research and analysis on dispute prevention and resolution.

We’ll be updating all three parts of this reading list regularly as new relevant materials emerge, so check back for the latest resources.

On dispute resolution:

  • [ACADEMIC] The elusive reform of international tax dispute settlement, by Yariv Brauner (2024): Assesses the persistent absence of a robust global tax dispute resolution mechanism and explores why meaningful reform remains elusive despite its critical necessity in international tax governance.
  • [ACADEMIC] Sovereignty and Tax Treaty Dispute Settlement, by Gerrit Groen, IBFD (2024): Questions whether MAP/arbitration mechanisms erode fiscal sovereignty by evaluating access, independence, and enforceability, and proposes a selective judicialized MAP/arbitration model that balances double taxation relief with democratic regulatory autonomy.

On dispute prevention:

  • [INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION] Keeping it Simple—Efficiency Costs of Fixed Margin Regimes in Transfer Pricing, by Sebastian Beer, Sebastien Leduc, and Jan Loeprick, IMF (2022): Analyses trade-offs in simplifying MNE tax rules, finding that while simplification reduces compliance costs, it can increase inefficiencies, especially in manufacturing, though sectoral variation suggests targeted approaches may mitigate productivity losses.

Primary Data

On the main negotiation process

On the Ad Hoc Committee (2024)

On the pre-agenda making phase (2022-2023)

Florian Dierich

Florian Dierich is a consultant currently working as an Associate Research Officer with the International Tax Team at ICTD. His work focuses on international tax cooperation. Previously, Florian has worked on international tax frameworks, including the OECD’s Two-Pillar Solution, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force and EU tax policies. He holds a Research Master’s in Political Science from Sciences Po Paris.

Frederik Heitmüller

Frederik Heitmüller is an Associate Postdoctoral Fellow with ICTD’s International Tax Team. His research focuses on policies against corporate tax avoidance, the influence of international norms in the Global South and global tax governance. He is also an independent consultant on tax policy. Prior to joining ICTD, he obtained a PhD from Leiden University, Netherlands, where he investigated the political economy of the BEPS Project in the Global South as member of the GLOBTAXGOV project, and taught courses on international and comparative taxation. He has a master’s degree in political science from Sciences Po Bordeaux and University of Stuttgart.
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.