International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept.
This paper analyzes how increasing population will impact the lives of people in the world in 2000. It underscores that in 2000, there will be more people, many living in crowded towns, suffering from even greater difficulties of transport and urban sprawl, both upward and outward. The provision of satisfactory housing for the mass of the population will be difficult, because, without subsidy, its construction would demand rentals equal at least to the occupant’s annual income, while to subsidize so many tenants would be impossible.
THE GOVERNMENTS of forty-nine countries have now accepted the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. They have accepted the Agreement “on their own behalf and in respect of all their colonies, overseas territories, all territories under their protection, suzerainty, or authority and all territories in respect of which they exercise a mandate.”1 On signing the Agreement, each government declares that “it has accepted this Agreement in accordance with its law and has taken all steps necessary to enable it to carry out all of its obligations under this Agreement.”2
AN ARTICLE on the jurisprudence of various member countries in which the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, or domestic legislation connected with the Agreement, had been relied on as having some bearing on the issues before the courts was published in April 1951.1 That story is carried forward in the present article, which examines a later group of cases, discussed under the headings (1) Privileges and Immunities, (2) Unenforceability of Certain Exchange Contracts, and (3) Capital Controls. In a concluding section, two Canadian cases dealing with gold subsidies are noted. Although they do not involve any direct contact with the Fund Agreement, there is an interesting parallel between them and the Fund’s practice on gold subsidies.
THREE CASES of importance are discussed in this installment of the survey of cases involving the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.1 These have been decided by the International Court of Justice, the New York Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. The issues relate to the right of a country to impose exchange control, the recognition by members of the Fund of the exchange control regulations of other members, and the privileges and immunities of the Fund.
ANUMBER OF CASES involving the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund have been decided by courts in Belgium, Germany, and the United States since the publication of the last installment of this survey. These new cases are discussed here under two headings: gold transactions and the unenforceability of certain exchange contracts.
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES four eases which have been decided by courts in Hong Kong, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United States (New York) in the period 1949 to 1958. All of the cases deal with the unenforceability of certain exchange contracts under Article VIII, Section 2 (b), of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.
THIS INSTALLMENT of the survey of cases involving the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund deals with cases in the courts of New York, Austria, and the Netherlands which were concerned with the unenforceability of certain exchange contracts; a case in Oregon, now to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, which considers the effect of exchange control on a nonresident heir’s right to inherit; and a case in Chile which dealt with the currency in which a claim to compensation for requisition should be discharged.
THIS ARTICLE continues the survey of cases in which the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund have been involved. The cases here considered have been decided by the United States Supreme Court, the New York courts, the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Court of Appeals of Paris, and the Ontario High Court. The cases are dealt with under the general headings of inheritance and exchange control, exchange surrender requirements, the unenforceability of certain exchange contracts, and enemy property.1