#en2wiki

The principal disagreement concerned the level of detail. The African Group, together with countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, viewed the existing text as a carefully balanced, high-level provision that already reflects the three dimensions of sustainable development and the agreed Terms of Reference. They cautioned against expanding the article unnecessarily. Many developed and several developing countries, including Jamaica, Brazil, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Azerbaijan, supported retaining Article 4 but argued that it should be strengthened through explicit references to DRM, environmental sustainability, climate change, human rights, gender equality, progressive taxation, and policy coherence. They considered these additions necessary to ensure that international tax cooperation more effectively contributes to achieving the Sustainable development goals (#SDGs).

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

Many countries welcomed Article 4 but argued that it should be expanded to better articulate the relationship between taxation and sustainable development. Their proposals generally focused on four themes: 1) stronger links to DRM; 2) environmental sustainability; 3) human rights and inclusion; and 4) policy coherence.

Jamaica proposed the most significant environmental expansion. It suggested inclusion of: 1) the Sustainable Development principle; 2) Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC); 3) alignment with international environmental treaties; and 4) reference to the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. Brazil supported retaining the article but proposed substantial additions, including a stronger link between tax cooperation and DRM; policy coherence with sustainable development, human rights, gender equality, racial equality, and environmental sustainability; CBDR; progressive taxation; and a periodic COP review mechanism. Azerbaijan made similar proposals to Brazil. Mexico also supported an amended Article 4 that included some of Brazil’s proposals, as well as the contribution of fiscal policy to economic and social rights. In addition to the inclusion of sustainable development and human rights, the United Kingdom expressed disappointment that the previous proposals had not been incorporated into the draft text of the Article. It proposed including Financing for Development (FFD4/Sevilla) commitments. India adopted a middle-ground position. It supported expanding the article but cautioned that it should remain high-level; the language should not become prescriptive, and Member States should retain policy space to design their own tax systems. India supported stronger references to DRM, reducing inequalities, and inclusive growth.

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

The African Group supported retaining Article 4 substantially as drafted, considering it to be balanced, comprehensive and consistent with the agreed ToR. While African countries indicated they would review written proposals, they did not support expanding the article during the negotiations. Saudi Arabia and China supported the Article remaining unchanged.

1. Article 4 reflects the agreed balance: African countries argued that the current text appropriately balances the three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social development, and environmental sustainability. Zambia and Nigeria proposed that Article 4 already captures the essential elements of sustainable development and should remain unchanged.
2. The article already accommodates different national capacities: Zambia highlighted that the opening paragraph already recognises the differing capacities of States Parties and the importance of DRM. Accordingly, additional language was considered unnecessary.
3. No need to expand the environmental dimension: Although several countries proposed strengthening the environmental language, the African Group considered that the environmental, economic, and social dimensions were already adequately reflected. Nigeria specifically noted that the proposals advanced by other delegations could already fit within the three existing dimensions of sustainable development rather than requiring additional text.
4. Maintain consistency with the Terms of Reference: The African Union stressed that the draft captures the essence of the ToR and should therefore be maintained without substantive amendment.
5. Preserve a balanced framework: African countries preferred to maintain a concise, high-level framework rather than introduce detailed policy prescriptions.

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

See the comments at #unfcitc01 - Objectives.

The African Group viewed Article 1 and 2 as a direct restatement of the agreed UN General Assembly mandate in the ToR. They argued that adding references to complementarity, existing treaties, or sovereignty would reopen settled negotiations and dilute the mandate. The EU and other Member States accepted the objectives but sought explicit reassurance that the Framework Convention would operate alongside existing international tax instruments, avoid duplication, preserve legal certainty, and respect state sovereignty. They considered these elements to be important interpretative guidance that should appear in Article 1 rather than be left solely to later provisions. However, other Member States sought to have the objectives of the Framework Convention in the Preamble. The Africa Group opposed this proposal, maintaining that the objectives established the legal objectives that served as a guide to the INC.

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

03 August 2026, New York

Ireland, on behalf of the member states of the European Union, proposed to have Articles 1 and 2 strengthened. Their key proposals were that: 1) there was a need to ensure consistency with existing international tax architecture; 2) the Convention should complement rather than replace existing agreements; 3) there was a need to improve legal certainty; and 4) there needs to be assurance that obligations under existing treaties are unaffected unless Parties agree otherwise. Japan supported this proposal, specifically the call for an explicit reference to existing international frameworks. The Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Austria, Germany, and France also supported this proposal, which called for improving the current legal system rather than an overhaul. Germany’s position was that Article 1, in its current state, was too broad. Mexico took a more nuanced position. It accepted that Article 1 reflects the ToR but argued that principles can legitimately overlap with substantive provisions, that complementarity should also appear as a guiding principle, and that Article 21 alone may not be sufficient to address the relationship with other instruments.

Indonesia proposed strengthening Article 2 by introducing an explicit principle of fair allocation of taxing rights, reflecting modern economic realities and addressing challenges posed by the digital economy. Azerbaijan expressed similar views. Indonesia, India, and Azerbaijan argued that Article 2 should expressly recognise different national capacities, policy space, flexibility for developing countries, and proportionate implementation.

Many delegations proposed making sovereignty an explicit principle. Countries included Colombia, Belgium, Sweden, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Czechia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. The common arguments were that tax sovereignty should be expressly protected, similar provisions exist in other UN conventions, and sovereignty should guide the interpretation of the Convention. Belgium specifically proposed a separate article on sovereignty.

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

[03 August 2026, New York]
Overall, the African Group (AG) strongly supported retaining Articles 1 and 2 as currently drafted, arguing that they faithfully reflect the agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) for a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (Resolution 79/235) adopted by the UN General Assembly. Specifically on Article 1, Zambia intervened on behalf of the Africa Group. It first reiterated the need for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to make substantial progress on the Articles of the Framework Convention. It supported the text of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention and submitted that the objectives of the Convention should reflect those set out in the ToRs. It rejected the proposals for complementarity, stating that this article could not address the Convention's relationship with other agreements. On the issue of complementarity, it noted that Article 21 of the Framework Convention addresses its relationship with other agreements, instruments, and domestic law. In addition, they were of the view that the Objectives and Principles of the Convention could not be in the Preamble to the Convention.

Following this intervention, the following were the key positions further articulated by the African Group and supported by other Member States:

• Article 1 should adhere to the ToR: Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria, Tanzania, and Burkina Faso supported the Africa Group position. They were of the view that the ToR, which set out the objectives, had already been negotiated under Resolution 79/235, and there was no need to reopen the discussion on the objectives at this advanced stage of drafting the Framework Convention. Senegal emphasised that not a single comma had been changed from the ToR. India, Russia, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia supported the Africa Group Position.
• The ToR is the negotiating mandate: In support of the Africa Group, Nigeria submitted that any changes to Articles 1 and 2 would effectively constitute an amendment to the INC mandate. These Articles were essentially the guide or constitution of the Framework Convention.
• Relationship with other agreements should be addressed in Article 21 of the Convention: There was an acknowledgement of the importance of understanding the relationship of the Framework Convention with bilateral tax treaties, OECD instruments, and other existing agreements. However, this was already dealt with under Article 21. This was repeatedly mentioned by Zambia, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal.
• The need for focused objectives: They emphasised that issues related to legal certainty, sovereignty, interaction with treaties, and complementarity should be addressed in other Articles of the Framework Convention rather than in Articles 1 and 2, reiterating that the current objectives, as drafted, were sufficiently concise.
• Objectives and Principles should remain separate from the preamble: There was strong opposition to the proposal to place Articles 1 and 2 in the preamble of the Framework Convention. This opposition came from Zambia, Kenya, and Côte d'Ivoire. They submitted that the purpose of the preamble to the Framework Convention was to provide context, while Article 1 establishes legal objectives.

Source: https://www.taxjusticeafrica.net/resources/news/updates-fifth-session-historic-intergovernmental-negotiating-committee-inc-united

This paragraph with hashtag #mahu72 endorses initiatives such as UN Global Principles for Information Integrity - Next Steps.

The Joshua Project website has People Group Lists by various characteristics. Start here: https://www.joshuaproject.net/lists

Check this course Kiswahili Basic Conversational Skills by Dr. Jefwa Meri (ResearchGate).

This post lists proposals for improvement in EIRA that I came across in the #pdf2wiki effort for EIRA Version 3.
As EIRA has been developed over the period in which also ArchiMate has evolved, several of these comments are related to the use of newer model elements that only came available in later versions.

On the one hand, the description explains the role of Theories of Change in development initiatives.

A question on the embedded video by Transform GhanaPeace (@transformghana_ on Twitter) helped me to clarify a "#aaaa42 Theory of Change" that becomes possible via the use of the country specific hashtags for the sustainable development goals and targets.

There is a reference to this page in an answer to a question on Quora:
How long does Twitter store hashtag information?.

The addition in ArchiMate 3.0 of application, technology and implementation event is noted. I am puzzled though with the absence of physical events - and other behaviour elements for the physical elements - with the justification "Rather, the behavior elements from the Technology Layer (technology function, process, interaction, service, and event) are used to model the behavior of all nodes, including physical equipment.
On the other hand, the spec chapter 15.2.5 gives the example of a threat event 'Tornado hits factory" - this event is not instantaneous, yet to me it clearly is a physical event.

There is a reference to this page in a comment to Unaffordable Medicines Now Global Issue; System Needs Change, Panellists Say (May 25, 2016). The comment also mentions Article 116 of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

There are references to Level of Scope, as it matters in a Collaborative Planning Methodology in the Actor Atlas, at:

• Principles for Digital Development
• Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

This topic is addressed in the description of the stakeholder template (Wikinetix requirements resources).

There is a reference to this page at 03 - Partner Work System in the #GlobalPartnership capability "wiki".

There is a reference to this article in an answer to a question at ResearchGate
(registration and login may be required).

More materials links in the answers at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Materials_Properties_Database