South Centre Inputs on Workstream III on dispute prevention and resolution (Co-Leads’ Draft Protocol on the Prevention and Resolution of Tax Disputes)
24 August 2026
The South Centre supports the development of an effective multilateral framework for the prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The Protocol should reflect the different capacities of States and provide sufficient flexibility for broad participation.
The Protocol should contain sufficient legal and procedural detail to provide a legal basis for mechanisms where none currently exist and to ensure coherence with mechanisms available under existing instruments. As such, the protocol itself should establish who can invoke it, when it applies, the obligations of competent authorities, and the relationship with existing instruments, and minimum procedural safeguards. Detailed operational procedures such as how an advance pricing arrangement (APA) or joint audit is conducted or mediator is appointed should be addressed through accompanying guidance issued by the Parties to the Protocol.
The protocol should cover the broad range of dispute-prevention mechanisms, but none should be mandatory, to allow flexibility given different State capacities.
The Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAPs) could constitute the core mechanism for the resolution of tax disputes under the Protocol, as it has a well-established basis in international tax practice.
The Protocol should not establish mandatory arbitration. Any arbitration mechanism, if retained, should be expressly voluntary and based on the consent of all competent authorities concerned.
The timelines provided in the protocol should be indicative rather than hard deadlines.
The protocol should provide for capacity building and technical assistance for the implementation.
South Centre Inputs on Workstream II on Taxation of Services (Co-Lead’s Draft Protocol on the Taxation of Income from Cross-Border Services)
26 August 2026
The South Centre welcomes the Draft Protocol on the Taxation of Income from Cross-Border Services and submits the following comments:
Scope: Cover all cross-border services broadly, not limiting it to technical and digital services alone, to avoid fragmentation.
Optionality: No reservations on key substantive provisions (Articles 5, 6, 7, 9); reservations permitted only for non-key administrative/procedural matters (e.g., rates, timelines).
Article 1. Subject to tax rule can apply to cross-border services income within Protocol scope, with the statutory rate fixed in the Protocol; extend paragraph 4’s residence state preservation to Articles 5–11.
Taxes covered: Exclude excise taxes.
Define “beneficial owner,” “payer,” “payment,” and “special relationship“; as applied in Articles 5 and 6.
The automated digital services list in Article 6(4) should be expressly non-exhaustive.
The protocol should provide guidance on nexus and revenue-sourcing rules under Articles 5 and 6, particularly for remote/data-driven monetization with no direct in-country payment.
The protocol should broaden “physical presence” beyond employees/agents and provide guidance on profit-allocation methods, including simplified profit allocation approaches under Article 9.
Existing treaties: Where inconsistent with an existing treaty, the Protocol should ideally automatically override the relevant provisions. However, in case treaty-by-treaty renegotiation is preferred, then the Protocol should trigger mandatory renegotiation within a defined timeframe aligned with Article 21 of the Framework Convention.
Implementation: In case the option of treaty-by-treaty renegotiation is chosen, then implementation can be done by a UN Fast-Track Instrument to streamline bilateral treaty alignment.
South Centre Inputs on Workstream I – Co-Lead’s Zero Draft of UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation
26 August 2026
Fair allocation of taxing rights should include nexus factors based on OR rather than AND, should specify methods of allocation and be de-linked from the objective of avoiding double taxation.
Conference of State Parties (COSP) should be the supreme body for administering the Framework Convention (FC) and the Protocols and any other instruments it produces, be able to undertake any actions required to achieve the objectives of the FC, and should be able to make decisions by simple majority vote.
Amendments to the FC and adoption of the FC’s Protocols should also be by simple majority.
All Parties to the FC and its Protocols should make regular and mandatory contributions. This is essential for the success of the UNFCITC. Sustained non-payment should result in denial of voting rights, as is currently the practice in the UN General Assembly under Article 19 of the UN Charter.
The commitment to align existing tax treaties, domestic law and other instruments with the FC and its Protocols should not be request-triggered, and the COSP should determine a timeline by when it will be done.
The COSP shall take measures to ensure that no Party to the FC is prevented from implementing the Convention, its Protocols and any other instruments adopted by the COSP.
The Growing Centrality of UNDROP in the International Governance of the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas
By Raffaele Morgantini
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) is increasingly becoming a key normative and political tool for transforming food and agricultural systems, particularly in the Global South. In a context of growing corporate concentration, commodification, and external dependencies, UNDROP provides a framework for strengthening peasants’ rights, food sovereignty, and democratic control over rural development.
Its growing influence results from both grassroots appropriation by peasant and rural organizations and its progressive integration into international and national legal frameworks. UN human rights mechanisms, courts, legislatures and public institutions are increasingly using UNDROP to interpret rights and develop policies concerning land, seeds, food, health, climate, and rural livelihoods. Recent developments in countries such as Honduras, Colombia, Kenya, Ecuador, and Brazil illustrate this shift towards practical implementation.
For the Global South, UNDROP offers a strategic opportunity to strengthen food and agricultural sovereignty, support agroecological pathways, protect biodiversity and traditional practices, and reduce dependence on concentrated global markets. Its effective implementation requires sustained political mobilization, institutional commitment and greater cooperation among States, human rights bodies, legal practitioners and rights holders.
ADVANCING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND GLOBAL HEALTH EQUITY THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Co-organized by the Global Center for Health Diplomacy and Inclusion (CeHDI) and South Centre
8 September 2026
4:00 to 6:00 pm
Followed by a cocktail
Kyoto Building, 3rd Floor, Chemin du Pommier 42, 1218 Le Grand Saconnex
(also online)
This Ambassadorial Dialogue will bring together ambassadors, senior diplomats, UN agencies, and global health experts to exchange views, in a spirit of South-South cooperation, on how the UPR can serve as a practical mechanism for advancing the right to health and promoting global health equity. The dialogue will bridge work at the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization, at a decisive moment for the Pandemic Agreement and equitable access to health products. The event will launch the South Centre Toolkit on Leveraging the UPR to Advance the Right to Health of Women and Girls, and present CeHDI’s Health and Rights Observatory, a digital platform for analysing UPR health outputs and tracking right to health commitments, both designed for direct use by delegations.
Grappling with Biofraud: Decision 16/2 Disenfranchises UNCBD Parties of Justifiable Rents for Genetic Resources
By Joseph Henry Vogel and Pallavi Mishra
A multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism for digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI) is under development by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD). Benefits are slated to be negligible. Biopiracy will continue to thrive in the digital realm unless an effective mechanism is established. The global South should place on record at COP17, scheduled for October 2026, that DSI-distinct-from-genetic-resources is not only wrong but fraudulent. Like-minded mega-diverse Parties should propose that a “fair and equitable” benefit be interpreted as analogous to the economic rent that inheres in intellectual property. Rent is the difference in profits that industry enjoys before a patent expires. For a Global Multilateral Benefit-sharing Mechanism to be efficient, the use of de-materialized genetic resources, inter alia “DSI”, must be disclosed in patent applications (Yes/No), with tracing for successful commercialisations.
The South Centre: 30 Years Advancing towards a Fair and Responsible International Investment Regime
By Daniel Uribe
This paper examines the South Centre’s 30-year effort to reform the international investment law (IIL) regime, advocating for a shift from a self-contained system to one integrated with human rights, environmental protection, and sustainable development. It analyses how the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has led to “regulatory chill” and legal fragmentation, disproportionately impacting developing nations. The South Centre promotes aligning investment with national development strategies through technical assistance, treaty renegotiation, and policy frameworks that emphasise investor obligations and State sovereignty. Ultimately, the paper calls for a paradigm shift in global governance to address emerging challenges such as climate change and the digital divide, thereby ensuring a more equitable and responsible investment landscape.
A tributação da economia digital na prática: Impostos sobre os serviços digitais e outras medidas
Por Natalia Quiñones, Anchal Khandelwal, Oluwole Olushola Oni, Maryam Maiyaki, Doris Malgwi, Ezekiel Swema, Nickson Omondi, Ivy Watti, Dinesh Thapa, Anne Wanyagathi Maina e Kolawole Omole
As empresas digitais continuam a crescer e a gerar receitas substanciais em jurisdições de mercado sem manter uma presença física. Baseiam-se principalmente em ativos intangíveis, dados de utilizadores e envolvimento dos utilizadores. As regras fiscais internacionais não acompanharam estes desenvolvimentos, deixando muitas jurisdições incapazes de tributar eficazmente a atividade económica digital. Em resposta, os países introduziram medidas nacionais, tais como os Impostos sobre Serviços Digitais (DST), as taxas de equalização e os impostos sobre a Presença Económica Significativa (SEP), continuando simultaneamente a envolver-se em esforços multilaterais. Este artigo examina a forma como os países implementaram tais medidas. O estudo aplica estudos de caso estruturados da Colômbia, Índia, Quénia, Nepal, Nigéria e Tanzânia. Analisa os quadros jurídicos, as práticas administrativas e os resultados em termos de receitas dos países, identificando simultaneamente características comuns e diferenças fundamentais nas abordagens de implementação. O artigo explora os fundamentos conceptuais e as justificações teóricas para tributar as receitas digitais na fonte, destacando as limitações das atuais regras de repartição de lucros que ignoram o papel do mercado. Com base nas experiências destes países, o estudo desenvolve um quadro de aprendizagem entre pares assente nas melhores práticas emergentes, reconhecendo simultaneamente os desafios da implementação. O estudo propõe, em seguida, vias para a harmonização das medidas fiscais digitais e delineia elementos essenciais de conceção para informar o desenvolvimento do protocolo preliminar sobre a tributação de serviços transfronteiriços (que inclui serviços digitais) ao abrigo da Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Cooperação Fiscal Internacional.
La fiscalidad de la economía digital en la práctica: Impuestos sobre los servicios digitales y otras medidas
Por Natalia Quiñones, Anchal Khandelwal, Oluwole Olushola Oni, Maryam Maiyaki, Doris Malgwi, Ezekiel Swema, Nickson Omondi, Ivy Watti, Dinesh Thapa, Anne Wanyagathi Maina y Kolawole Omole
Las empresas digitales siguen creciendo y generando ingresos sustanciales en jurisdicciones de mercado sin mantener una presencia física. Dependen principalmente de los activos intangibles, los datos de usuarios y la interacción de los usuarios. Las normas fiscales internacionales no han seguido el ritmo de estos avances, lo que ha dejado a muchas jurisdicciones sin la capacidad de gravar eficazmente la actividad económica digital. En respuesta, varios países han introducido medidas nacionales, como los Impuestos sobre Servicios Digitales (ISD), los gravámenes de compensación y los impuestos sobre Presencia Económica Significativa (PES), al tiempo que continúan participando en iniciativas multilaterales. Este documento examina cómo los países han aplicado estas medidas. El estudio abarca casos prácticos estructurados de Colombia, India, Kenia, Nepal, Nigeria y Tanzania. Analiza los marcos jurídicos, las prácticas administrativas y los resultados en materia de recaudación de estos países, además de identificar características comunes y principales diferencias en los enfoques de implementación. El documento explora los fundamentos conceptuales y las justificaciones teóricas para gravar los ingresos digitales en el país de la fuentela fuente, destacando las limitaciones de las normas actuales de asignación de beneficios que pasan por alto el papel del mercado. A partir de las experiencias de estos países, el estudio desarrolla un marco de aprendizaje entre pares basado en las mejores prácticas emergentes, reconociendo al mismo tiempo los desafíos en la implementación. Finalmente, el estudio propone vías para armonizar las medidas fiscales digitales y describe los elementos esenciales de diseño que deben tenerse en cuenta en la elaboración del protocolo inicial sobre la fiscalidad de los servicios transfronterizos (incluidos los servicios digitales) en el marco de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cooperación Internacional en Materia Tributaria.
La fiscalité de l’économie numérique en pratique : les taxes sur les services numériques et autres mesures
Par Natalia Quiñones, Anchal Khandelwal, Oluwole Olushola Oni, Maryam Maiyaki, Doris Malgwi, Ezekiel Swema, Nickson Omondi, Ivy Watti, Dinesh Thapa, Anne Wanyagathi Maina et Kolawole Omole
Les entreprises numériques continuent de se développer et de générer des revenus substantiels dans les juridictions du marché sans y maintenir de présence physique. Elles s’appuient principalement sur des actifs incorporels, les données des utilisateurs et leur engagement. Les règles fiscales internationales n’ont pas suivi le rythme de ces évolutions, laissant de nombreuses juridictions dans l’incapacité de taxer efficacement l’activité économique numérique. En réponse, certains pays ont mis en place des mesures nationales, telles que les taxes sur les services numériques (TSN), les prélèvements d’égalisation et les taxes sur la présence économique significative (SEP), tout en poursuivant leurs efforts multilatéraux. Le présent document examine la manière dont les pays ont mis en œuvre ces mesures. L’étude s’appuie sur des études de cas structurées portant sur la Colombie, l’Inde, le Kenya, le Népal, le Nigeria et la Tanzanie. Elle analyse les cadres juridiques, les pratiques administratives et les résultats en matière de recettes de ces pays, tout en identifiant les caractéristiques communes et les principales différences dans les approches de mise en œuvre. Le document explore les fondements conceptuels et les justifications théoriques de l’imposition des revenus numériques à la source, en soulignant les limites des règles actuelles de répartition des bénéfices qui négligent le rôle du marché. S’appuyant sur ces expériences nationales, l’étude élabore un cadre d’apprentissage par les pairs fondé sur les meilleures pratiques émergentes, tout en reconnaissant les défis liés à la mise en œuvre. L’étude propose ensuite des pistes pour harmoniser les mesures fiscales numériques et décrit les éléments de conception essentiels pour éclairer l’élaboration du premier protocole sur la fiscalité des services transfrontaliers (qui inclut les services numériques) dans le cadre de la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur la coopération fiscale internationale.
Into the Void: The Inflation Reduction Act Panel Ruling and the Crisis of WTO Reform
By Vahini Naidu
On 30 January 2026, a WTO Panel ruled that the domestic content bonus credits under the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act violated the GATT 1994, the TRIMs Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. The United States appealed the ruling to a non-functional Appellate Body, sending it into a legal void. Read against the backdrop of WTO reform discussions that culminated at the Fourteenth Ministerial Conference in Yaoundé in March 2026, the ruling is far more than a bilateral dispute. It exposes the central contradictions in the reform agenda: the Members most vocally demanding new disciplines on others’ subsidy practices have themselves demonstrated both the willingness to operate prohibited measures and the capacity to do so without meaningful consequence. This paper unpacks the Panel’s findings, situates them within the post MC14 reform process, and draws out the implications for developing countries. It argues that the Level Playing Field track must be reframed around compliance symmetry and policy space; that dispute settlement restoration must be decoupled from other reform tracks; that the African Group’s call for reinstatement of non-actionable subsidy categories under Article 8 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) is the most operationally precise developing country proposal currently on the table; and that the United States’ parallel push to render Article XXI(b) fully self-judging threatens to create a zone of immunity for industrial policy that is structurally unavailable to the majority of developing countries.
South Centre Statement to the First Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance
Geneva, 6-7 July 2026
AI governance needs implementation of multilateral commitments, backed by financing & measurable progress. International cooperation & AI capacity-building for the Global South is key to leverage AI for development.
