This thesis attempts to resolve the deadlock to achieve an equitable division of taxes, and thereby internation equity. As the present tax laws were not negotiated, it is not considered here as fair. In this thesis it is proposed that an equitable division could be achieved through a division based on the levels of human development (combining Rawlsian schema and Sen’s capability approach). Therefore, it is argued that such a division would be equitable; because it would be based on entitlements (territorial claims), it would generate cooperation and thereby lead to greater efficiency. Importantly, this thesis establishes that the present tax treaties neither generate cooperation nor cohere with global welfare. Similarly, it is also found that the other institutions (OECD, IMF, WB and Dispute Settlement) related the tax regime presently do not promote development based on human capabilities. This could help developing countries to pursue a division favouring development (laws favouring development) and understand the institutions better suited to pursue such goals.

O presente estudo trata do procedimento amigável e da arbitragem como métodos de solução de controvérsias envolvendo a dupla tributação no âmbito das convenções internacionais celebradas por diversos países. Com efeito, em virtude do desenvolvimento das tratativas comerciais, são recorrentes as discussões relativas à soberania dos países e ao limite de sua competência tributária, sendo que as convenções internacionais para evitar a dupla tributação surgiram como mecanismos para conciliação dos interesses dos Estados Contratantes e de seus contribuintes. Ocorre, contudo, que os acordos internacionais nem sempre são suficientes para dirimir todos os conflitos envolvendo a dupla tributação, exigindo-se a adoção de outros mecanismos, i.e. procedimento amigável e arbitragem, conforme previstos no artigo 25, da Convenção Modelo da Organização para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico. O procedimento amigável permite a negociação entre dois ou mais países visando solucionar eventual conflito surgido no âmbito da aplicação da convenção internacional, bem assim a integração de seu conteúdo e a resolução de problemas interpretativos que podem desvirtuar seu fim. A arbitragem, por sua vez, possibilita a composição pacífica dos Estados Contratantes mediante a submissão da controvérsia à apreciação de um tribunal arbitral composto por sujeitos altamente capacitados e com expertise sobre a matéria. A despeito das inúmeras vantagens apresentadas por esses mecanismos, o Brasil não adota o procedimento amigável e ainda não incluiu a arbitragem em suas convenções internacionais, de modo que é imperativo o estudo de referido tema para o incremento e a harmonização das relações internacionais mantidas pelo país e seus contribuintes. / The present study deals with the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as methods of resolving disputes involving double taxation in tax treaties signed by several countries. Indeed, due to the development of commercial trades are currently the discussions on the sovereignty of states and the limit of its tax competence, so the tax treaties for the avoidance of double taxation have emerged as mechanisms for reconciling the interests of the Contracting States and its taxpayers. However, these tax treaties are not always sufficient to resolve all conflicts of double taxation by requiring the adoption of other mechanisms, such as mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as provided for in Article 25 of the Model Convention of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development. The mutual agreement procedure allows the negotiation between two or more countries to resolve any conflicts arising in the scope of tax treaty, as well as the integration of content and the resolution of interpretive issues that can prejudice its finality. Arbitration, on the other side, enables the peaceful settlement of the Contracting States through the submission of the dispute before an arbitral tribunal composed of highly trained individuals and expertise on the matter. Despite the many advantages presented by these mechanisms, Brazil does not adopt the mutual agreement procedure and the arbitration is not yet included in their tax treaties, so it is imperative the study of theme for the improvement and harmonization of international relations retained by country and its taxpayers.

O presente estudo trata do procedimento amigável e da arbitragem como métodos de solução de controvérsias envolvendo a dupla tributação no âmbito das convenções internacionais celebradas por diversos países. Com efeito, em virtude do desenvolvimento das tratativas comerciais, são recorrentes as discussões relativas à soberania dos países e ao limite de sua competência tributária, sendo que as convenções internacionais para evitar a dupla tributação surgiram como mecanismos para conciliação dos interesses dos Estados Contratantes e de seus contribuintes. Ocorre, contudo, que os acordos internacionais nem sempre são suficientes para dirimir todos os conflitos envolvendo a dupla tributação, exigindo-se a adoção de outros mecanismos, i.e. procedimento amigável e arbitragem, conforme previstos no artigo 25, da Convenção Modelo da Organização para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico. O procedimento amigável permite a negociação entre dois ou mais países visando solucionar eventual conflito surgido no âmbito da aplicação da convenção internacional, bem assim a integração de seu conteúdo e a resolução de problemas interpretativos que podem desvirtuar seu fim. A arbitragem, por sua vez, possibilita a composição pacífica dos Estados Contratantes mediante a submissão da controvérsia à apreciação de um tribunal arbitral composto por sujeitos altamente capacitados e com expertise sobre a matéria. A despeito das inúmeras vantagens apresentadas por esses mecanismos, o Brasil não adota o procedimento amigável e ainda não incluiu a arbitragem em suas convenções internacionais, de modo que é imperativo o estudo de referido tema para o incremento e a harmonização das relações internacionais mantidas pelo país e seus contribuintes. / The present study deals with the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as methods of resolving disputes involving double taxation in tax treaties signed by several countries. Indeed, due to the development of commercial trades are currently the discussions on the sovereignty of states and the limit of its tax competence, so the tax treaties for the avoidance of double taxation have emerged as mechanisms for reconciling the interests of the Contracting States and its taxpayers. However, these tax treaties are not always sufficient to resolve all conflicts of double taxation by requiring the adoption of other mechanisms, such as mutual agreement procedure and arbitration as provided for in Article 25 of the Model Convention of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development. The mutual agreement procedure allows the negotiation between two or more countries to resolve any conflicts arising in the scope of tax treaty, as well as the integration of content and the resolution of interpretive issues that can prejudice its finality. Arbitration, on the other side, enables the peaceful settlement of the Contracting States through the submission of the dispute before an arbitral tribunal composed of highly trained individuals and expertise on the matter. Despite the many advantages presented by these mechanisms, Brazil does not adopt the mutual agreement procedure and the arbitration is not yet included in their tax treaties, so it is imperative the study of theme for the improvement and harmonization of international relations retained by country and its taxpayers.

O objetivo do presente trabalho consiste em analisar a necessidade, a viabilidade e demais aspectos práticos inerentes à inserção de uma cláusula prevendo a submissão compulsória de litígios não solucionados pelo procedimento amigável, único método existente nos acordos de bitributação celebrados pelo Brasil, à arbitragem (mandatory arbitration), como forma de incrementar os mecanismos de solução de controvérsias hoje disponíveis nos acordos de bitributação. Para alcançar essa finalidade específica, iniciou-se o estudo (Capítulo 2), após breve introdução, a partir de uma aferição das espécies de controvérsias oriundas da interpretação e aplicação dos acordos de bitributação, notadamente em relação aos tratados celebrados pelo Brasil. Ato contínuo, procurou-se, no Capítulo 3 da tese, examinar mais detidamente o instituto do procedimento amigável, de maneira a demonstrar, ao final, as diversas deficiências inerentes ao referido mecanismo. Como forma de aprimorar o modelo de solução de controvérsias então existente, analisou-se, no Capítulo 4 da tese, as diversas propostas de inserção de uma arbitragem compulsória e suplementar ao procedimento amigável (two-step approach), entre elas a Convenção Europeia de Arbitragem (Convenção 90/436/EEC), bem como também os modelos de arbitragem apresentados pela OCDE e ONU, em seus respectivos modelos de convenção. Constituiu objeto precípuo de análise, igualmente, a aferição da experiência internacional existente em relação ao tema, mais especificamente nos acordos celebrados pelos Estados Unidos, Áustria, Alemanha. Reino Unido e Holanda. No Capítulo 5, por sua vez, com o objetivo específico de incrementar a eficácia do mecanismo, tratou-se de aspectos práticos inerentes à inclusão da arbitragem nos acordos celebrados pelo Brasil, mormente no que atine (i) ao escopo das convenções arbitrais, (ii) à ata de missão dos árbitros, (iii) à constituição do painel arbitral, (iv) ao sigilo e confidencialidade, (v) à escolha do procedimento aplicável e a instrução do processo, (vi) à definição da sede do tribunal, (vi) à participação do contribuinte, (vii) à aferição dos requisitos inerentes à sentença arbitral, (viii) à logística e aos custos do processo, bem como, também, (ix) à fonte jurídica disponível para a resolução dos litígios. No Capítulo 6, por sua vez, procurou-se demonstrar a inexistência de qualquer óbice à utilização do referido mecanismo de solução de controvérsias nos tratados celebrados pelo País. Feita a referida análise, tratou-se, no Capítulo 7, do tema atinente ao reconhecimento e execução da sentença arbitral, bem como de sua eventual relação com a Convenção de Nova Iorque. Por derradeiro, apresentou-se uma síntese conclusiva do raciocínio desenvolvido ao longo da tese em relação aos tópicos analisados. / The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze the necessity, feasibility and other practical matters inherent to the negotiation and inclusion of a mandatory arbitration clause in Brazilian double tax treaties that could be triggered in cases where mutual agreement procedure, the only mechanism to solve disputes in such treaties, is not able to eliminate the controversies that may arise in this field. After a brief introduction, we began our study, on Chapter 2, by studying the main types of controversies derived from the interpretation and application of double tax treaties, specially with regard to the Brazilian experience. In this sense, we examined, on Chapter 3, the contours of the mutual agreement procedure in a way to demonstrate, in the end, the relevant deficiencies inherent to the such dispute resolution mechanism. On Chapter 4, we analyzed the different ways that such a mandatory arbitration clause, ancilar to the mutual agreement procedure (two-step approach), was inserted in the international context, namely in the EU Arbitration Convention (Convention 90/436/EEC), as well as in the OECD and UN proposals, with regard to their respectively model conventions. Also, we studied the international experience in the field, specifically in relation to the development observed in the tax treaty policies of some countries, such as the United States, Austria, Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Subsequently, on Chapter 5 we explored the more practical matters related to such a mandatory arbitration clause, specially with regard to (i) the scope of the arbitration clause, (ii) the specific terms of reference, (iii) the selection of the arbitrators, (iv) confidenciality, (v) the establishment of procedural and evidentiary rules, (vi) the seat of the arbitration, (vii) the taxpayer participation in the procedure, (viii) the minimum requirements related to the award, (ix) the logistical arrengements and costs, (x) and the source of law that can be used by the arbitrators. On Chapter 6, we tried to demonstrate the absence of any constitucional barrier preventing the use of arbitration as a means of solving controversies related to taxation, specially with regard to Brazilian double tax treaties. On the last Chapter (Chapter 7), we dealt with the issues related to the recognition and enforcement of the award under Brazilian rules and also with regard to the New York Convention. Lastly, we presented a conclusive synthesis of the study.

O objetivo do presente trabalho consiste em analisar a necessidade, a viabilidade e demais aspectos práticos inerentes à inserção de uma cláusula prevendo a submissão compulsória de litígios não solucionados pelo procedimento amigável, único método existente nos acordos de bitributação celebrados pelo Brasil, à arbitragem (mandatory arbitration), como forma de incrementar os mecanismos de solução de controvérsias hoje disponíveis nos acordos de bitributação. Para alcançar essa finalidade específica, iniciou-se o estudo (Capítulo 2), após breve introdução, a partir de uma aferição das espécies de controvérsias oriundas da interpretação e aplicação dos acordos de bitributação, notadamente em relação aos tratados celebrados pelo Brasil. Ato contínuo, procurou-se, no Capítulo 3 da tese, examinar mais detidamente o instituto do procedimento amigável, de maneira a demonstrar, ao final, as diversas deficiências inerentes ao referido mecanismo. Como forma de aprimorar o modelo de solução de controvérsias então existente, analisou-se, no Capítulo 4 da tese, as diversas propostas de inserção de uma arbitragem compulsória e suplementar ao procedimento amigável (two-step approach), entre elas a Convenção Europeia de Arbitragem (Convenção 90/436/EEC), bem como também os modelos de arbitragem apresentados pela OCDE e ONU, em seus respectivos modelos de convenção. Constituiu objeto precípuo de análise, igualmente, a aferição da experiência internacional existente em relação ao tema, mais especificamente nos acordos celebrados pelos Estados Unidos, Áustria, Alemanha. Reino Unido e Holanda. No Capítulo 5, por sua vez, com o objetivo específico de incrementar a eficácia do mecanismo, tratou-se de aspectos práticos inerentes à inclusão da arbitragem nos acordos celebrados pelo Brasil, mormente no que atine (i) ao escopo das convenções arbitrais, (ii) à ata de missão dos árbitros, (iii) à constituição do painel arbitral, (iv) ao sigilo e confidencialidade, (v) à escolha do procedimento aplicável e a instrução do processo, (vi) à definição da sede do tribunal, (vi) à participação do contribuinte, (vii) à aferição dos requisitos inerentes à sentença arbitral, (viii) à logística e aos custos do processo, bem como, também, (ix) à fonte jurídica disponível para a resolução dos litígios. No Capítulo 6, por sua vez, procurou-se demonstrar a inexistência de qualquer óbice à utilização do referido mecanismo de solução de controvérsias nos tratados celebrados pelo País. Feita a referida análise, tratou-se, no Capítulo 7, do tema atinente ao reconhecimento e execução da sentença arbitral, bem como de sua eventual relação com a Convenção de Nova Iorque. Por derradeiro, apresentou-se uma síntese conclusiva do raciocínio desenvolvido ao longo da tese em relação aos tópicos analisados. / The main purpose of this thesis is to analyze the necessity, feasibility and other practical matters inherent to the negotiation and inclusion of a mandatory arbitration clause in Brazilian double tax treaties that could be triggered in cases where mutual agreement procedure, the only mechanism to solve disputes in such treaties, is not able to eliminate the controversies that may arise in this field. After a brief introduction, we began our study, on Chapter 2, by studying the main types of controversies derived from the interpretation and application of double tax treaties, specially with regard to the Brazilian experience. In this sense, we examined, on Chapter 3, the contours of the mutual agreement procedure in a way to demonstrate, in the end, the relevant deficiencies inherent to the such dispute resolution mechanism. On Chapter 4, we analyzed the different ways that such a mandatory arbitration clause, ancilar to the mutual agreement procedure (two-step approach), was inserted in the international context, namely in the EU Arbitration Convention (Convention 90/436/EEC), as well as in the OECD and UN proposals, with regard to their respectively model conventions. Also, we studied the international experience in the field, specifically in relation to the development observed in the tax treaty policies of some countries, such as the United States, Austria, Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Subsequently, on Chapter 5 we explored the more practical matters related to such a mandatory arbitration clause, specially with regard to (i) the scope of the arbitration clause, (ii) the specific terms of reference, (iii) the selection of the arbitrators, (iv) confidenciality, (v) the establishment of procedural and evidentiary rules, (vi) the seat of the arbitration, (vii) the taxpayer participation in the procedure, (viii) the minimum requirements related to the award, (ix) the logistical arrengements and costs, (x) and the source of law that can be used by the arbitrators. On Chapter 6, we tried to demonstrate the absence of any constitucional barrier preventing the use of arbitration as a means of solving controversies related to taxation, specially with regard to Brazilian double tax treaties. On the last Chapter (Chapter 7), we dealt with the issues related to the recognition and enforcement of the award under Brazilian rules and also with regard to the New York Convention. Lastly, we presented a conclusive synthesis of the study.

Longtemps délaissé, l’accord est aujourd’hui au coeur du processus de rupture du contrat de travail. A la suspicion qui entourait l’expression commune des volontés est substituée la confiance. La légalisation de la rupture d’un commun accord du contrat de travail par la loi du25 juin 2008 sous le nom de rupture conventionnelle en témoigne. Cette réforme a bouleversé le droit de la rupture du contrat de travail. Même s’il est acquis depuis longtemps que les parties peuvent mettre un terme d’un commun accord au contrat qui les unit sur le fondement de l’article 1134 du Code civil, cette modalité de rupture n’a longtemps été utilisée que de manière très ponctuelle. L’absence d’encadrement de cette technique et les restrictions apportées à son champ d’application l’expliquent en partie. La reconnaissance du commun accord comme mode de rupture spécifique du contrat de travail, auquel est attaché un régime précis et autonome, pourrait signifier la fin de l’utilisation de la rupture d’un commun accord de droit commun, considérée comme peu adaptée aux relations de travail. Un tel régime pourrait également mettre un terme au monopole détenu par les ruptures unilatérales, en particulier le licenciement. Une large prise en compte du dispositif de rupture conventionnelle est de nature à contribuer à l’apaisement et à l’équilibre des relations de travail. / Initially relinquished, mutual agreement is now at the heart of the process of terminating the employment contract. There has been an evolution tending to the shift from suspicion towards mutual agreement as a termination device to the trust in such means. This acquired trust is best illustrated by the recognition of employment termination via mutual agreement by the Act dated June, 25th 2008. The reform introduced by this Act transformed the legal regime applicable to the termination of employment contracts. Despite the fact that Article 1134 of the French Civil Code has long granted parties the possibility to terminate the contract binding them by mutually agreeing to do so, such mode of termination has only been resorted to on a fairly limited basis. This phenomenon can notably be explained by both the lack of clear legal framework applicable to this device, and the restrictions imposed on its ambit. The recognition of termination of the employment contract via mutual agreement as a device specifically applied in the field of labor law, as well as the definition of a specific and independent regime would be likely to give rise to ending the resort to Article 1134, whose scope is only general and not specifically tailored to labor relations. The implementation of this specific regime could put an end to the monopoly held by unilateral terminations of the employment contract, particularly the method of dismissal. A broad consideration of termination of the employment contract via mutual agreement can also contribute to the appeasement and balance in labor relations.

La rupture du contrat de travail se caractérise en général par la volonté unilatérale d’une partie et ce n’est que par une construction jurisprudentielle issue du droit des contrats en application de l’article 1134 du Code civil que la rupture d’un commun accord a été rendue possible. Elle ne doit pas être confondue avec une transaction et ne poursuit pas les mêmes objectifs. Elle connu néanmoins un succès très restreint et fût mise à l’écart par le droit du travail. Ce mode de rupture amiable n’a connu sa consécration qu’avec la loi du 25 juin 2008 créant la rupture conventionnelle. Elle a été influencée par la jurisprudence relative à la rupture d’un commun accord classique pour finalement s’en éloigner définitivement et suivre son propre chemin. On a donc pu apprécier l’incidence que chacune des formes de rupture a pu avoir sur l’autre. Les litiges entre les parties, ainsi que les restrictions liées à l’état de santé du salarié ne font désormais plus obstacle à la conclusion d’une rupture conventionnelle, privilégiant ainsi la volonté des parties au détriment de la protection du salarié. Cette réforme a de plus créé une dualité entre ces deux régimes ; mais le juge a rapidement affirmé l’exclusivité de la rupture conventionnelle en ce qui concerne le contrat à durée indéterminée. Toutefois cette dualité persiste encore dans de nombreux domaines. Il semblait donc intéressant d’étudier les pistes destinées à améliorer encore ce mode de rupture amiable en essayant de concilier la fluidité et la sérénité des relations de travail / The termination of an employment contract is generally characterised by one party’s unilateral intention to terminate and the possibility to terminate by mutual agreement has only been construed by case law on the basis of article 1134 of the civil code. Such termination by mutual agreement is not to be confused with a transaction and does not pursue the same objectives. This construction has however not encountered much success and has been sidelined by labour law practitioners. The amicable termination of employment contracts has not been truly sanctioned until the law of 25 June 2008 that created the contractual termination. The contractual termination has been influenced by the case law that construed the termination by mutual agreement, but it ultimately moved away for good and followed its own path. It was thus possible to analyse the impact each kind of amicable termination had on its alternative. Legal proceedings between the parties and restrictions in connection with the health of the employee do not prevent a contractual termination, thereby privileging the autonomy of the parties over the protection of the employee. In the beginning there was a rivalry between the two kinds of termination, but case law has quickly established the exclusivity of the contractual termination for permanent employment contracts. However the duality remains in numerous other domains. It seemed thus interesting to study the possibilities that may improve the existing alternatives of amicable termination and reconcile fluidity and serenity in the employer-employee relationship

Les modes amiables de rupture du contrat de travail sont en plein essor. Même si la rupture amiable de la relation contractuelle, issue de l’article 1134 du Code civil, est reconnue depuis plusieurs décennies, son manque d’appréhension par la législation sociale en limite l’usage alors même que son efficacité, en ce qui concerne les contrats de travail à durée déterminée et le contrat d’apprentissage, n’a plus à être prouvée. Le regain actuel que connait ce type de rupture résulte de la création d’un nouvel acte par la loi de modernisation du marché du travail du 25 juin 2008. La rupture conventionnelle, voulue comme un acte permettant d’assurer la sécurité de la cessation relationnelle, a redonné confiance, aux employeurs et salariés, en l’utilisation du consensualisme lors de résiliation du contrat qu’ils ont créé. Ainsi, sans véritablement remettre en cause l’existence de la rupture issue du droit commun, la rupture conventionnelle semble être l’acte le plus à même de mettre fin à l’hégémonie des actes unilatéraux de rupture / The ways to break a work contract amicably are booming . Even if the amicable break of the contractual relationship , from Article 1134 of the civil code , has been recognized for several decades , its lack of real understanding and use by the social legislation limits its use , even though its effectiveness,regarding the fixed period employment contracts and the training contract does not need to be proven any more ! The current revival of this way to break a contract comes from the creation of a new act : the 25 th june 2008 modernization of the labour market law . The conventional breach, supposed to be an act which permits to reinforce the safety of the relational breach has boosted the confidence of employers as well as employees, when the use of consualism , they had created, has to be broken .So, without really putting into question the breach itself the origin of which being the common law, the conventional breaking is the most likely act to put an end to the hegemony of unilateral acts of breach

博士（経営法） / 甲第658号 / 241p