5
General framework
sometimes have different features in bilateral relations with developing
countries
14
and are seldom concluded with low-tax jurisdictions.
15
The difference in the use of bilateral investment and bilateral tax treaties
may find various explanations, three of which are worth mentioning here.
Historically, the first bilateral tax treaties were concluded as early as in
the 19th century. The first modern BIT only appeared in 1959
16
as part of
a more general worldwide trend to provide international legal protection
to investment, a trend that also gave rise to, among other instruments, the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and
the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ar-
bitration systems for disputes on international investment.
Multilateral instruments were developed for the protection of investment
and trade liberalization, but hardly any can be found in international taxa-
tion, which was essentially driven by bilateralism steered by model con-
ventions drafted under the auspices of the League of Nations, the Organi-
sation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Furthermore, since the late 18th century
17
until after the end of the Sec-
ond World War,
18
developed countries have concluded friendship and com-
14. Economists are often sceptical about their impact on foreign direct investment,
see P. Egger, M. Larch, M. Pfaffermayr and H. Winner, The Impact of Endogenous Tax
Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Theory and Evidence, 39 Canadian Journal of
Economics 3 (2006), pp. 901-931. However, previous interdisciplinary and legal studies
conducted at WU Vienna question whether this outcome may have been partly biased
by the absence of a sufficiently specific analysis of the comprehensive set of clauses
contained in the tax treaties of each country. See further on this in F. Barthel, M. Busse,
R. Krever and E. Neumayer, The Relationship between Double Taxation Treaties and
Foreign Direct Investment, in M. Lang et al. (eds.), Tax Treaties: Building Bridges
between Law and Economics (IBFD Publications, 2010), pp. 3-18; and P. Pistone, Tax
Treaties with Developing Countries: A Plea for New Allocation Rules and a Combined
Legal and Economic Approach, id., pp. 413-414.
15. For the purpose of our research, the concept of bilateral tax treaty indicates a
general tax treaty concluded with a view to countering international double taxation
on income and capital. Concluding such treaties with low-tax jurisdictions is, on the
one hand, not particularly needed and, on the other hand, exposes high-tax countries
to double non-taxation, especially when the exemption method relieves double taxation
and prevents the exercise of tax jurisdiction in respect of foreign-sourced income.
16. See A. Gildemeister, Germany, sec. 12.1.1.; and T. Dubut and T. Randriamana-
lina, France, sec. 11.1.1.
17. D. Smit, Netherlands, sec. 16.1.1.; and Y. Brauner, United States, sec. 22.1.1.
18. For instance, the friendship and commerce treaty between the Netherlands and
the United States was concluded in 1956, i.e. shortly before the creation of the Euro-