Journal of International Economic Law, 2025, 27, 618–623

DOI: [Link]
Advance Access Publication Date: 9 January 2025
Original Article

International institutions in global tax

governance
Miranda Stewart *

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

ABSTR ACT
Tax law and governance have long been understood as quintessential elements of national sovereignty.
Today, there appears to be an expansion of global tax governance through the work of a diverse array
of international institutions. This article identifies the ‘who’ of global tax governance, ‘what’ they are
engaged in, and ‘how’ they seek to go about it. Mapping the international institutions engaged in tax-
ation is a necessary step in analysing the origins, activities, and future direction of this new field of
multilateral activity.

IN TRODUCTION
The power to tax has long been a core element of sovereignty that is exclusively in the domain
of states. Yet today, we see an expansion of global tax governance through various international
institutions.1 This article maps the ‘who’, ‘how’, and ‘what’ of international institutions engaged
in tax law and governance. This is a necessary step in analysing the origins, activities, and future
direction of this new field of multilateral activity. The key institutions discussed are the United
Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World
Bank (WB), and International Monetary Fund (IMF), each of which engage in different ways in
what has been called an international tax ‘system’2 or ‘regime’.3 The World Trade Organization
(WTO) has a significant, although less direct, impact. The article also briefly comments on influ-
ential regional organizations, the European Union (EU) and the African Tax Administration
Forum (ATAF), and some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
The work of these international institutions on taxation was predated by the cooperation of
states in regional customs unions,4 and two previous attempts at global tax cooperation in the

* Miranda Stewart, Professor, Melbourne University Law School, VIC 3010, Australia. Email: [Link]@[Link].
Thanks to the editors and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and to Diya John for research assistance.
1 See further Allison Christians, ‘International Tax Organizations’ in Yariv Brauner (ed), Research Handbook on International
Taxation (Edward Elgar 2020) 29, 29–43.
2 Wolfgang Schön, ‘Is There Finally an International Tax System?’ (2021) 13 WTJ 357.
3 Yariv Brauner, ‘An International Tax Regime in Crystallisation’ (2003) 56 Tax Law Review 259.
4 The oldest functioning customs union is the Southern African Customs Union established in 1910, today comprising South
Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Eswatini: <[Link]> accessed 18 October 2024.

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
licence ([Link] which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution
of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited.
For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@[Link] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can
be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site–for further information please
contact [Link]@[Link].
 International Institutions in Global Tax Governance • 619

League of Nations and the UN.5 At the start of the 20th century, the League sought to address
double taxation and tax avoidance but failed to reach an agreement, producing conflicting model
treaties, a pro-source country Mexico Model (1943), and a pro-residence country London
Model (1946).6 During the middle of the century, the short-lived UN Fiscal Commission failed
to achieve an agreement between capital-importing (developing) and capital-exporting (devel-
oped) countries on a model treaty.7 Since the 1960s, the OECD has dominated the field of global
tax governance, but today we are seeing a resurgence of the UN in the field.

KEY IN TER N ATION A L INSTITU TIONS

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

The OECD (still) dominates
The OECD, with 38 mostly high-income Member States, has since the 1960s contributed to
establish international tax standards through a Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital
and Commentary.8 It seeks to lead in setting international tax norms through work staffed and
funded by Member States, operating by consensus in Working Parties on various topics.9 The
OECD also collects tax statistics in a programme it now extends to countries around the world.10
The second wave of economic globalization in the 1980s generated a new focus on interna-
tional tax. Tax policy had ‘traditionally been thought of as an entirely domestic matter’, but ‘in
an increasingly global world economy, nations can no longer afford to design their tax system
without accounting for the effects on international trade and investment’.11 The digital revo-
lution of the 1990s that continues today accelerated these effects. The OECD began work to
counter international tax avoidance and the use of low-tax jurisdictions or regimes to minimize
tax by multinational enterprises (MNEs) and high-income individuals. OECD efforts to control
tax havens and ‘harmful tax competition’ had made little progress by the end of the century.12
However, this effort received new impetus after the Global Financial Crisis of 2009, and the
OECD expanded its reach to include a wider range of states through sponsorship of a range of
multilateral forums and frameworks, with a view to building a global approach.
The OECD has been quite successful in building global governance of tax administra-
tion.13 The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
has 171 Member States.14 It is founded on a network of tax information exchange agreements
and a multilateral convention with 148 signatories.15 The Global Forum claims with some

5 Sunita Jogarajan, Double Taxation and the League of Nations (CUP 2018).
6 Miranda Stewart, Tax and Government in the Twenty-first Century (CUP 2022); Sunita Jogarajan, ‘The Origins of the
International Tax Regime’ in Yariv Brauner (ed), Handbook of International Taxation (Edward Elgar 2020).
7 Nikki Jern-li Teo, The United Nations in Global Tax Coordination: Hidden History and Politics (CUP 2023).
8 OECD, Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2017 (Full Version) (OECD 2017) <[Link]/content/
dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/04/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2017-full-version_g1g972ee/
[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024.
9 A detailed explanation is in Christians (n 1).
10 OECD, Global Revenue Statistics Database, which states that it includes ‘comparable tax revenue data for 127 economies
from 1990 onwards’: <[Link]/en/data/datasets/global-revenue-statistcs-database> accessed 18 October 2024. See also
comparative research, eg analysis of tax administrations for 60 countries: <[Link]/en/topics/sub-issues/comparative-
analysis-of-tax-administrations> accessed 18 October 2024.
11 Joel Slemrod, ‘Tax Principles in an International Economy’ in Michael J Boskin and Charles E McLure Jr (eds), World Tax
Reform: Case Studies of Developed and Developing Countries (ICS Press 1990) 11, 12.
12 OECD, Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue (OECD 1998).
13 Miranda Stewart, ‘Transnational Tax Information Exchange Networks: Steps Towards a Globalized, Legitimate Tax
Administration’ (2012) 4 WTJ 152–79.
14 OECD, ‘Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes’ (OECD) <[Link]
[Link]/tax/transparency/[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024 (Global Forum).
15 OECD and Council of Europe, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by
the 2010 Protocol (OECD 2011); signatories as of 10 October 2024.
620 • International Institutions in Global Tax Governance

justification to be the ‘leading international body’ on tax transparency.16 The OECD Forum on
Tax Administration includes over 50 countries.17
The OECD also sought to lead in setting standards for value-added tax (VAT) since the 2015
Global Forum on VAT involving more than 100 countries.18 This established an OECD ‘legal
instrument’ that was open to ‘adherence’ by nonmembers.19 The success of the VAT Forum led
some to identify the OECD as a potential world tax organization.20
The OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project to address corporate tax planning
in the global digital economy commenced in 2014 and led to the establishment of the Inclusive
Framework with 140 member jurisdictions.21 A novel contribution is the Multilateral Instru-
ment to enable simultaneous alteration of the network of bilateral tax treaties.22 This has been

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

suggested as a model for other areas of international economic law.23 The OECD currently aims
to establish a global minimum tax on MNEs and a multilateral convention to tax profits of MNEs
in the so-called ‘Two-Pillar Solution’ by consensus in the Inclusive Framework.24 We have yet to
see the outcome of these processes. The global minimum tax proposed in Pillar 2 to be adopted
by states in domestic law may alter the global benchmark for taxation of MNEs, but the multilat-
eral convention proposed in Pillar 1, now open for signature, seems unlikely to succeed. Neither
Pillar will be supported by the US under a Trump administration.

International financial and trade institutions

Since the 1970s, the IMF and WB have influenced tax reform in developing countries through
lending, aid, and technical assistance programmes, in a framework of trade and investment liber-
alization to support economic growth.25 The IMF expanded its focus to the ‘structural and social
aspects of fiscal policy’26 including tax reform in conditional lending and provision of technical
assistance. Today, this work also aims to support Financing for Development for the UN Sus-
tainable Development Goals.27 A key goal is ‘domestic resource mobilisation’ aimed at countries

16 ibid.
17 OECD, ‘Forum on Taxation’ (OECD) <[Link] accessed 12
October 2024.
18 OECD, ‘Global Forum on VAT’ (OECD, 21 June 2019) <[Link]
[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024.
19 OECD, ‘Recommendation of the Council on the Application of Value Added Tax/Goods and Services Tax to the Inter-
national Trade in Services and Intangibles’ OECD/LEGAL/0430 (27 September 2016) <[Link]
instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0430> accessed 5 October 2024.
20 Art Cockfield, ‘The Rise of the OECD as an Informal “World Tax Organization” Through National Responses to E-
Commerce Tax Challenges’ (2005–2006) 6 Yale JLT 136, 160–61.
21 OECD, ‘Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)’ (OECD) <[Link]/en/topics/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-
[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024 (BEPS); Allison Christians and Laurens van Apeldoorn, ‘The OECD Inclusive Framework’
Bulletin for International Taxation (April/May 2018) 226.
22 ‘Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting’ <http://

[Link]/tax/treaties/[Link]> accessed 12
October 2024.
23 Wolfgang Alschner, ‘The OECD Multilateral Tax Instrument: A Model for Reforming the International Investment Regime?’
(2019) 45 Brooklyn JIL 1.
24 OECD, Statement on a Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Econ-
omy (8 October 2021) <[Link]
[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024.
25 Miranda Stewart, ‘Global Trajectories of Tax Reform: Mapping Tax Reform in Developing and Transition Countries’ (2003)
44 Harvard JIL 140, 140–90; Miranda Stewart and Sunita Jogarajan, ‘The IMF and Tax Reform’ (2004) 2 British Tax Review 146,
146–75.
26 Vito Tanzi, ‘The Changing Role of Fiscal Policy in Fund Policy Advice’ (IMF Seminar, 19 September 1997) <[Link]/
external/np/apd/asia/[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024.
27 Miranda Stewart and Prasanna Nidumolu, ‘International Tax Law and Development’ in Ruth Buchanan, Luis Eslava and
Sundhya Pahuja (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law and Development (OUP 2023) 407, 407–30.
 International Institutions in Global Tax Governance • 621

raising more revenue from a domestic tax base.28 The IMF has recently launched a Global Public
Finance Partnership with this goal.29
The IMF has close to universal country membership, but its work on tax policy does not draw
legitimacy from its representative status or from multilateral treaties. Rather, it is premised on a
claim to technical expertise in tax policy, buttressed by its role as a lender of last resort. In recent
years, as the IMF itself has become a focus of reform, some of its tax analysis has taken a more
nuanced and critical approach.30 Examples are its research on the OECD BEPS agenda31 and
its work programme on gender equality in taxation.32
International tax and trade laws have historically been treated as separate regimes.33 However,
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and WTO obligations established a trade liberal-

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

ization framework that has had an important impact on tax reform.34 Most developed countries
replaced lost tariff revenue with other taxes, but developing countries faced a significant revenue
loss from tariff reductions.35 The WTO also influences tax policy as tax measures may breach
trade provisions, for instance, tax incentives for foreign investment may violate the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.36 Recent developments do not directly involve the
WTO but adopt free trade rhetoric, for example the proposed use of trade sanctions by the USA
against countries that enact a digital services tax.37

Regional and nongovernment organisations

The EU has significant powers in international taxation for its members, including through legis-
lation of the Council, policy and enforcement by the Commission, and judicial decisions of the
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).38 Legislative power is constrained by a una-
nimity rule (contrasting with qualified majority voting on other issues).39 The failure to establish
an EU corporate tax base is one example where Member States could not agree.40 An attempt
initiated in 2019 to adopt qualified majority voting on tax has so far failed.41
EU tax law, like other European economic law, has the main goal of preserving the four free-
doms of the EU to support the single market. However, its scope has recently expanded to

28 International Monetary Fund and World Bank, ‘Stepping Up Domestic Resource Mobilization: A New Joint Initia-
tive from the IMF and WB’ (IMF, June 2024) <[Link]/-/media/Files/Research/imf-and-g20/2024/domestic-resource-
[Link]> accessed 18 October 2024.
29 IMF, ‘Global Public Finance Partnership’ (Progam Document, December 2023) <[Link]/-/media/Files/capacity-
developement/Partners/[Link]> accessed 15 July 2024.
30 Kristalina Georgieva and Rhoda Weeks-Brown, ‘The IMF’s Evolving Role Within a Constant Mandate’ (2023) 26 JIEL 17,
17–29.
31 IMF, International Corporate Tax Reform (2023) Policy Paper No 2023/001.
32 Maria Delgado Coelho and others, Gendered Taxes: The Interaction of Tax Policy with Gender Equality (2022) IMF Working
Paper No 2022/026; see also Camila Villard Duran, ‘The (In)visible Woman at the International Monetary Fund: Engendering
National Economic Rule-making’ (2021) 24 JIEL 738, 738–54.
33 Paul R McDaniel, ‘The Pursuit of National Tax Policies in a Globalized Environment: Trade and Taxation’ (2001) 26 Brook
JIL 1621.
34 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, opened for signature 30 October 1947, 55 UNTS 187 (entered into force 1 January

1948) pt 1, art 1 (GATT).

35 Mario I Blejer and Adrienne Cheasty, ‘Fiscal Implications of Trade Liberalisation’ in Vito Tanzi (ed), Fiscal Policy in Open
Developing Economies (IMF, 1990) 66; Julia Cage and Lucie Gadenne, ‘Tax Revenues and the Fiscal Cost of Trade Liberalization,
1792–2006’ (2018) 70 Explorations in Economic History 1–24 [Link]
36 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 14 (entered

into force 1 January 1995) annex 1A (Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures).
37 Chris Noonan and Victoria Plekhanova, ‘Taxation of Digital Services under Trade Agreements’ (2020) 23 JIEL 1015,
1015–39.
38 European Commission, ‘Implementing EU Law’ (European Union) <[Link]
law/implementing-eu-law_en> accessed 5 October 2024.
39 Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012]
C326/01, arts 113–14.4.
40 European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB)’ COM (2016) 683
final; European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)’
COM (2023) 532 final.
41 European Commission, ‘Decision-making on EU Tax Policy’ (European Commission, 2024) <[Link]
[Link]/taxation/decision-making-eu-tax-policy_en> accessed 5 October 2024.
622 • International Institutions in Global Tax Governance

addressing corporate tax avoidance in the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and in strong rules for
administrative cooperation.42 The European Commission also exerts influence through the state
aid rules, seen recently in the controversial decision of the CJEU confirming that Irish tax rulings
about Apple’s tax position were illegal state aid.43
Other regional institutions are beginning to make their mark in global tax governance. One
example is the ATAF, which while not a state-based body describes itself as the ‘official voice’
of taxation on the African continent.44 The ATAF was established in 2016 and comprises rev-
enue officials, with fewer policy officials engaged. It is supported by the African Union and
funded by various organizations, including the OECD, and has a limited but growing influence
in international tax debates.45

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

An influential role is played by some NGOs, including the International Chamber of Com-
merce (ICC), founded in 1919, and Business at the OECD, founded in 1961.46 In the last two
decades, community NGOs including the Tax Justice Network have established a strong voice
for fairness in international taxation.47 Less visible is the International Financial Reporting Stan-
dards (IFRS) foundation that governs the IFRS applicable in more than 140 jurisdictions.48
Corporate profit determined by these standards has emerged as a key base for the global taxation
of MNEs proposed in the Two-Pillar Solution of the OECD Inclusive Framework.

The UN (re)stakes its claim

The UN provides a framework for tax in the Financing for Development agenda and has par-
ticipated in tax reform in developing countries since the 1950s.49 Its expert Committee on Tax
Matters produces a UN Model Convention.50 The Committee has in recent years asserted a
stronger voice, updating the Model with provisions suitable for the global digital economy.51
The UN cooperates in a limited way with the OECD, IMF, and WB in the Platform for Collabo-
ration on Tax (PCT).52 The PCT focuses mainly on capacity building and includes international
taxation as one of five work streams.53
This is set to change, as the UN General Assembly in 2023 re-entered the field of global
tax governance on the initiative of Nigeria and the G77, when it established an ad hoc Inter-
governmental Committee for a new framework convention to promote ‘inclusive and effective
international tax cooperation’.54 Terms of reference adopted in August 2024 will be voted on

42 Anti-tax Avoidance Directive, Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164; Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative
cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC8), amended by Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226.
43 Alexander F Peter, ‘CJEU Reinstates €13 Billion State Aid Decision Against Apple’ TNI (11 September 2024); C-465/20 P
European Commission v Ireland (10 September 2024).
44 African Tax Administration Forum, ‘Home’ <[Link]/> accessed 5 October 2024.
45 Martin Hearson, Rasmus Corlin Christensen and Tovony Randriamanalina, ‘Developing Influence: The Power of “the Rest”
in Global Tax Governance’ (2023) 30 Rev Int Pol Econ 841, 854.
46 See, eg, Taxation, ‘ICC Issues Business response to UN Article 12A on Taxation of Cross-border Services’ (International
Chamber of Commerce, 26 June 2024) <[Link]
xx-on-taxation-of-cross-border-services/> accessed 5 October 2024; Business at OECD, ‘Statement of Best Practices For Engaging
with Tax Administrations in Developing Countries’ (Business at OECD, November 2022) <[Link] accessed
5 October 2024; Ksenia Polonskaya, ‘The Strategies of the International Chamber of Commerce to Eliminate Double Taxation’
(2022) 25 JIEL 74, 74–90.
47 The Tax Justice Network and Global Alliance for Tax Justice, ‘an umbrella group for mass mobilisation for progressive and
redistributive tax systems’, <[Link]> accessed 18 October 2024.
48 IFRS Foundation, ‘About Us’ (IFRS 2024) <[Link]/about-us/who-we-are/> accessed 5 October 2024. The US Finan-
cial Accounting Standards Board is also important because it sets the base for US MNEs, ‘About the FASB’ <[Link]/about-
us/about-the-fasb> accessed 5 October 2024.
49 Stewart (n 25).
50 UN, UN Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2021 edition).
51 ibid, arts 12A (technical services) and 12B (digital withholding tax).
52 Platform for Collaboration on Tax, ‘Home Page’ <[Link]/> accessed 5 October 2024.
53 Platform for Collaboration on Tax, ‘PCT Progress Report 2023’ (2023) <[Link]/sites/pct/files/
publications/[Link]> accessed 5 October 2024.
54 UN General Assembly, ‘Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations’ UNGA
Res A/78/459/Add.8 (22 December 2023) UN Doc A/RES/78/230, operative clause 3.
 International Institutions in Global Tax Governance • 623

by the General Assembly this year.55 The initiative seemed to take the OECD by surprise,
despite being recommended by the Financial Accountability Transparency and Integrity Panel
in 2021.56 To date, most OECD states have either opposed the measure or abstained.

CONCLUSION
The work of international institutions on global tax governance has built momentum at a time
when economic globalization has slowed and global trade has fragmented,57 while these insti-
tutions appear to suffer a crisis of legitimacy in respect of other areas of international economic
law.58 In the tax arena, international institutions do not have supranational authority, for exam-
ple supported by a treaty, with the exception of the EU in its domain. Instead, international

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 28 July 2025

institutions pursue tax cooperation and agreement through soft law, models and standards estab-
lished by consensus (in the OECD) or unanimity (in the EU), gradually being supported by
multilateral treaties.59
The consensus approach of the OECD, especially in the Inclusive Forum, has been seen as
cloaking stark imbalances in power and differences in capacity and perspectives on international
taxation between developing and developed countries.60 In contrast, the UN framework con-
vention process that has just commenced has the appearance of a struggle for democracy in
taxation on the world stage, to be determined by vote of a majority of states, while a significant
minority of mostly high-income states may fail to participate or actively oppose the process.
Global multilateralism through a UN framework convention is an important next step in
achieving fair and representative global tax governance. A global approach offers promise for
inclusivity and flexibility if it permits countries to opt out, or opt in, to different rules. However,
too much flexibility undermines the ability to bind states to a meaningful regime if they cannot
reach an agreement on fundamental issues, as has occurred in the past. We are at a tipping point
in a dynamic process that has not yet reached a stable equilibrium. The coming decade may see
increased institutionalization of global tax governance, or alternatively a crisis of legitimacy and
breakdown in multilateral efforts in the field.

55 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘Ad Hoc Committee Draft Terms of Reference for the United Nations
Framework Convention on International Tax’ (2024) <[Link]
united-nations-framework-convention-international-tax> accessed 5 October 2024.
56 UN FACTI Panel, Report of the High Level Panel on International Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity for
Achieving the 2030 Agenda (February 2021), Recommendation 2.
57 Maurice Obstfeld, Economic Multilateralism 80 Years after Bretton Woods, (April 2024) Peterson Institute for International
Economics Working Paper 24-9; Kevin Hjortshøj O’Rourke, ‘Economic History and Contemporary Challenges to Globalization’
(2019) 79 J Econ Hist 356–82.
58 See, eg, Isabelle Van Damme, ‘25 Years of Law and Practice at the WTO: Did the Appellate Body Dig its Own Grave?’ (2023)
26 JIEL 124, 124–32; Antoine Martin and Bryan Mercurio, ‘Doha Dead and Buried in Nairobi: Lessons for the WTO’ (2017) 16
JITL & P 49, 49–66; Peter T Muchlinski, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Where Now?’ (2000) 34
Intl Lawy 1033, 1033–54; SA Spears, ‘The Quest for Policy Space in a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’
(2010) 13 JIEL 1037–75; William Ruto, ‘A Consensus is Forming for IMF Reform’ Finance & Development ( June 2024).
59 Miranda Stewart, ‘Unilateralism, Bilateralism, and Multilateralism in International Tax Law’ in Florian Haase and Georg
Kofler (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Tax Law (OUP 2023).
60 Rasmus C Christensen, Martin Hearson and Tovony Randriamanalina, ‘At the Table, Off the Menu? Assessing the Partici-
pation of Lower-Income Countries in Global Tax Negotiations’ (December 2020) International Centre for Tax and Development
Working Paper 115.