The Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Tax Treaty) allocates taxation rights between countries to prevent double taxation. A broad network of tax treaties helps cover more cross-border transactions, but disputes over tax jurisdiction can still arise. The Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), introduced by the OECD, resolves such disputes by determining which country has the right to tax a particular transaction. Indonesia has 71 Tax Treaties, each including MAP provisions. The main goal of these treaties is to clarify taxation rights and provide a dispute resolution mechanism. However, Indonesia has opted not to include arbitration in its tax treaties, following the OECD Model Tax Treaty’s Article 25, paragraph 5. Despite this, the Indonesia-Mexico Tax Treaty includes an arbitration provision, creating uncertainty about its application in international tax disputes. This raises questions about how arbitration will be applied in the handling of international tax disputes. This study examines the legal certainty regarding the arbitration mechanism in the Indonesia-Mexico Tax Treaty, highlighting several issues such as legal gaps, inconsistencies, and usefulness. To create consistency, Indonesia needs to clarify its position on whether or not to apply arbitration in the resolution of international tax disputes through MAP. To achieve legal certainty, Indonesia needs to develop domestic legal instruments that should be issued if arbitration is to be implemented, or the steps to be taken if Indonesia decides not to apply arbitration. Furthermore, Indonesia needs to assess the usefulness of implementing arbitration. To complete this study, the author uses a qualitative research method. This research is normative legal research, employing several approaches: the statutory approach, conceptual approach, and comparative approach. The data used in this research is secondary data obtained through library research, supported by primary data through interviews with officials from the Directorate General of Taxes.