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.
Intertax