Partnerships for the Goals

The state, especially in emerging economies, plays a key role in influencing firm behaviour, including outward foreign direct investment (OFDI). Often literature on the state’s influence on OFDI stresses direct state ownership. However, the state can influence OFDI in several ways, including policy support and subsidies; the literature has largely overlooked these effects. We build on key insights from the comparative capitalisms literature to put forward a series of propositions on how home-country measures – in both emerging and developed economies – to boost OFDI will influence, inter alia, the volume, location and mode of firms’ investments abroad. We thus contribute to the literature by showing how government policies across a wide range of countries influence an important aspect of firm behaviour that has economic, social and environmental implications.

An advance pricing agreement (APA) is a formal arrangement between a tax authority and a multinational enterprise (MNE) in which the parties jointly agree on the MNE’s transfer pricing methodology, estimated taxable income, and tax payments for a fixed period, thus reducing the likelihood of an income tax dispute. We argue that APAs, which were developed by governments to solve MNE-state problems in one realm (international taxation of related party transactions), have had unintended consequences for both parties due to the spillover impacts of APAs into other policy realms. We explore this argument in the European Union state aid cases where, in the context of competition policy, APAs can be viewed as hidden, discretionary policies that can be misused by lower-tier governments to attract or retain inward foreign direct investment by offering individual MNEs preferential tax treatment. Our paper contributes to this literature by analyzing the unintended consequences of APAs and recommending policy changes to reduce these negative spillovers.

This paper examines the use of the “value creation” concept that plays a central role in current OECD/G20 and European Union taxation work as a way of determining the taxation rights of countries, especially in the increasingly digitalised economy. It examines the likelihood of a consensus on whether it is an appropriate test, particularly with a view to the interests of developing countries. It also notes the need for such countries to ensure that their “policy space” in corporate taxation that is based on the place of consumption is not unduly limited by these developments.

This fall will mark 17 years since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security. This agenda includes specific provisions for peace negotiations and agreements, as does the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). While there have been achievements in women’s access to and participation in peace processes, there is still much to be done. Unfortunately, women continue to be largely excluded from participating in and mediating peace processes. As a result, gender perspectives are absent from emergent peace agreements. This occurs despite the tremendous role that women play in promoting peace, peaceful dialogue and ending hostilities in many armed conflicts. A 2012 UN Women study of 31 peace processes between 1992 and 2011 illustrates well this marginalization of women: only 4 per cent of signatories, 2.4 per cent of chief mediators, 3.7 per cent of witnesses and 9 per cent of negotiators were women.

In addressing the question of the role of the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR) in preventing crises, one must look beyond the confines of its mandate and examine the issue in practical, albeit indirect, terms. In so doing, one should not separate the role of AIPR in preventing crises from the unique position afforded by its traditional governance structur.

The investment treaty network and the tax treaty network comprise more than 3,000 treaties each. The provisions of these treaties generally are highly customized on the basis of the investment flows and economic interests of the contracting States. The number of treaties in force and their customization potentially turn the amendment of these treaty networks in their entirety into a cumbersome and long process. To modify the treaty networks in a swift and coordinated manner, the investment treaty makers and the tax treaty makers almost contemporaneously developed the idea of implementing treaty changes through a single multilateral convention. On 10 December 2014, the United Nations adopted the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor–State Arbitration, also known as the Mauritius Convention. In addition, on 24 November 2016, the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), commonly referred to as the Multilateral Tax Instrument, was concluded under the aegis of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Mauritius Convention and the Multilateral Tax Instrument share the object and purpose of modifying an extensive number of treaties. However, due to their novelty, little research has been done until now on their common characteristics and differences. The article aims at filling this gap by comparing both multilateral conventions. It also aims at drawing lessons from the analysis of both multilateral conventions that might be of benefit for future modifications of an extensive number of treaties through a single instrument.