Abstract
This article analyses whether the presence of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) in tax treaties can prevent the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in disputes in which the States involved have signed the optional clause with reservations ratione fori. The study provides an overview of the means of dispute settlement available in international law and cross-examines each of them with the particular features of the MAP, in order to determine whether the ICJ would likely consider the MAP as a dispute resolution tool. Focus is also given to the practice of the ICJ of taking an equitable approach to its decisions and to the possibility of the Court pursuing an innovative approach and considering the factual effectiveness of the MAP when determining, based on a case-by-case analysis, the prevention of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
