- Joseph Gold
- Published Date:
- September 1983
References to provisions of the Fund’s Articles of Agreement are to the present Articles unless they are followed by the word original or first, in which event they refer to the original Articles or the First Amendment, respectively.
The five earlier pamphlets in this series are referred to by the number and date of the pamphlet, as follows:
Pamphlet No. 19 - Floating Currencies, Gold, and SDRs:
Some Recent Legal Developments (1976).
Pamphlet No. 22 - Floating Currencies, SDRs, and Gold:
Further Legal Developments (1977).
Pamphlet No. 26 - SDRs, Gold, and Currencies:
Third Survey of New Legal Developments (1979).
Pamphlet No. 33 - SDRs, Currencies, and Gold:
Fourth Survey of New Legal Developments (1980).
Pamphlet No. 36 - SDRs, Currencies, and Gold:
Fifth Survey of New Legal Developments (1981).
Annual Report of the Executive Board for the Financial Year Ended April 30, 1982 (Washington, 1982), p. 89. (Hereinafter referred to as Annual Report,1982.) The report states that the sale of SDRs by the Swiss National Bank involved the first transfer of SDRs against Swiss francs, and that the acquisition of SDRs from a prescribed holder by a new member of the Fund to enable it to pay the SDR component of its subscription to the Fund was the first acquisition of SDRs against SDR-denominated deposits with a private bank.
Article V, Section 10. See also Pamphlet No. 26 (1979). pp. 15-19.
See Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), p. 24.
Executive Board Decision No. 4773-(75/136), August 1, 1975, as amended by Decision No. 5694-(78/35), March 17, 1978, Selected Decisions of the International Monetary Fund and Selected Documents, Ninth Issue (Washington, 1981), pp. 295-97. (Hereinafter referred to as Selected Decisions.)
Executive Board Decisions No. 6843-(81/75), May 6, 1981, No. 6863-(81/81), May 13, 1981, as amended by Decision No. 6870-(81/83), June 1, 1981, and No. 6864-(81/81), May 13, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 143-86.
Executive Board Decision No. 6844-(81/75), May 5, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, p. 186.
Ibid., pp. 186-88.
H. Schadee, ed., Transport (The Netherlands), pp. 1311 et seq.
Art. III of the Protocol.
Art. IV of the Protocol.
Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 29-31.
Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 22-23.
Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), p. 37.
Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), p. 30.
Schadee (cited in n. 10), pp. 1324-28 et seq.
Convention relative aux transports internationaux ferroviaires (COTIF); Convention internationale concernant le transport des marchandises par chemins de fer (CIM); Convention internationale concernant le transport des voyageurs et des bagages par chemins de fer (CIV); Organisation intergouvemmentale pour les transports internationaux ferroviaires (OTIF); Office central des transports internationaux ferroviaires (OCTI).
Art. 19 (COTIF).
Art. 8 (COTIF).
Art. 21 (COTIF).
Appendix B, Art. 7 (COTIF).
Appendix A, Art. 6 (COTIF).
J. H. P. Boudenwijnse, “The Berne Railway Conventions in a New Shape: The Convention of International Railway Transport (COTIF),” Netherlands International Law Review. Vol. 29 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 151-73.
Resolution No. COM8/3. See Stephen A. Silard, “ITU Decides to Adopt SDR as Monetary Unit,” IMF Survey, Vol. 11 (December 13, 1982), pp. 404-405.
“[Babucar] N’diaye Moves Towards the Bond Markets,” Supplement to Euromoney, May 1981, p. 8. For a list of identified public placements of SDR-denominated instruments in 1981, see Dorothy Meadow Sobol, “The SDR in Private International Finance,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Review, Vol. 6 (Winter 1981-82), p. 36.
The Economist. March 20, 1982, p. 38.
Wila D. Mung’omba, Le Monde. February 13, 1982.
Robert C. Effros, ed., Emerging Financial Centers: Legal and Institutional Framework, International Monetary Fund (Washington, 1982), pp. 575-604.
East African Development Bank, Annual Report, 1980 (Kampala), pp. 3, 13, and 1981, pp. 7, 12.
Sobol (cited in n. 27), pp. 29—41; Lawrence de V. Wragg, “Commercial Transactions in SDRs—Some Documentation Considerations,” Business Law Review, Vol. 2 (October 1981), pp. 315-17;Th. N., “Le marché des certificats de dépôts en D.T.S., Agence Economique et Financiére (year-end edition, December 1981), pp. 118-20; Joseph Gold, “Development of the SDR as Reserve Asset, Unit of Account, and Denominator: A Survey, ”George Washington Journal of International Law and Economies, Vol. 16 (No. 1, 1981), pp. 1—64; Orren Merren, “The SDR as a Unit of Account in Private Transactions,” International Lawyer. Vol. 16 (Summer 1982), pp. 503-20.
Financial Accounting Standards Board of the Financial Accounting Foundation, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 52: Foreign Currency Translation (Stamford, Connecticut, December 1981), p. 76. An entity’s functional currency is defined as the currency of the primary economic environment in which the entity operates, that is, normally the currency of the environment in which an entity primarily generates and expends cash (ibid., p, 77). The commercial use of the SDR is referred to in Pamphlet No. 26 (1976), p. 30, in which a clause in one commercial contract made available to the author is quoted. See Merren, pp. 516-20 (cited in n. 32).
A proposal, as follows, has been made by Giovanni Magnifico, economic adviser, Bank of Italy:
“These drawbacks might be avoided, at least in part, by pricing and invoicing oil in SDRs. This would recognize the fact that, although we have a dominant international vehicle currency, we do not have a national currency able to act satisfactorily as an international standard of value. This role can best be played by a composite monetary medium, such as the SDR; its mix of the world’s five main currencies is likely to reflect the experience and the evolution of most, if not all, leading international currencies.”—“Pricing commodities in SDRs,” Institutional Investor (international edition, February 1982). p. 23.
Dr. Magnifico also states that “an increasing number of companies are resorting to SDR pricing.” He cites, however, only the Suez Canal Authority (on which see Pamphlet No. 19 (1976), p. 48).
Anthony R. Miller, “Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement—LOF 1980: A Commentary,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 12 (January 1981), pp. 243-61, at pp. 254, 261.
See Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 34-35.
Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 41-12.
Robert C. Effros, “Unit of Account for International Conventions Is Considered by UN Commission on Trade Law,” IMF Survey, Vol. 11 (February 8, 1982), pp. 40-41. The plaintiffs-appellants (TWA), in their petition for rehearing, and suggesting rehearing in banc, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Franklin Mint Corporation et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., point out, in response to the court’s statement that the valuation of the SDR is “variable at the whim” of the Fund, that the Fund’s membership consists of 146 countries, that high majorities are required for decisions on the method of valuation, and that even nonmembers, including the U.S.S.R., agree that the SDR is the best unit of account (p. 14, fn., of the petition).
Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 22-24.
Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of its fifteenth session. Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-Seventh Session, Supplement No.17 (A/37/17)), United Nations (New York, 1982), pp. 14-17.
Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 22-23.
Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 38-40. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Working Group on International Negotiable Instruments, Unit of Account of Constant Value: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Document A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.27, November 23, 1981.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (cited in n. 39).
Joseph Gold, “Effects of Variable Exchange Rates on Treaties,”RevueBeigec/eDroitinternational. Vol. 16 (No, 1. 1981-82), pp. 192-95, 199. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold, “Variable Exchange Rates.”)
The subject of an index has been considered by French courts in connection with the application of a unit of account defined in terms of gold in two conventions. On August 24, 1978, the Le Havre Commercial Court decided that the Poincaré franc should be applied according to the most recent par value of the French franc adjusted according to the retail price index as determined by the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Research. The Court of Appeal of Paris, on January 31, 1980, rejected this solution because it would require the court to select an index. Joseph Gold, The Fund Agreement in the Courts: Volume II—Further Jurisprudence Involving the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (Washington, 1982), pp. 446-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts: Volume II.)
Article IV, Section 3(a)
Article IV, Section 3(b).
See Executive Board Decisions No. 5392-(77/63), April 27, 1977, and No. 6026-(79/13), January 22, 1979, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 10-15; Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 78-81; Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 45-46; Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 43-45.
Article XII, Section 3(b). The procedure by which the Executive Board endorses a summing up by the Managing Director involves the Board’s scrutiny of a draft summing up and amendment of it by the Board, if necessary, so that the statement is an adequate reflection of the Board’s discussion, but the procedure avoids some of the give and take in drafting texts that purport to be formulated by the Board itself. The procedure avoids the risk of the lowest common denominator of consent and permits more detail than might be considered desirable in other forms of decision.
Article IV, Section 2(a).
Article VIII, Section 3.
Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 46-64.
How to refer to the views of Executive Directors who are fewer than the total number has never been resolved authoritatively. The statement mentions “a number of Executive Directors.” “several” Executive Directors, “one” or “two” Executive Directors, “some speakers.”
On the meaning of symmetry, and its contrast to uniformity, sec Joseph Gold, “Symmetry as a Legal Objective of the International Monetary System,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 12 (Winter 1980), pp. 423-77, at pp. 423-28. On uniformity, see Joseph Gold, Legal and Institutional Aspects of the International Monetary System: Selected Essays (Washington, 1979), Chap. 13. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold, Selected Essays.)
See, for example, World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund, IMF Occasional Papers, No. 9 (Washington, April 1982). For its predecessor, see IMF Occasional Papers, No. 4 (June 1981).
Annual Report, 1982. Appendix B, Role of the Managing Director in Surveillance, p. 130. The expression “sovereign right to make policy”‘ does not, and could not, authorize policies that are inconsistent with the obligations that countries have undertaken by becoming members. The acceptance of those obligations is itself an exercise of sovereignty. For decisions of the Fund, taken on January 12, 1948, on the responsibility of the Managing Director, the staff, and the Executive Board on policies and major problems, see Joseph Gold, Voting and Decisions in the International Monetary Fund (Washington, 1972), pp. 249-50. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold, Voting and Decisions.)
“The Managing Director shall be chief of the operating staff of the Fund and shall conduct, under the direction of the Executive Board, the ordinary business of the Fund. Subject to the general control of the Executive Board, he shall be responsible for the organization, appointment, and dismissal of the staff of the Fund.” —Article XII. Section 4(b).
See also Article XII, Section 3(a): “The Executive Board shall be responsible for conducting the business of the Fund, and for this purpose shall exercise all the powers delegated to it by the Board of Governors.”
The statement represents no departure from the Fund’s decisions of January 12, 1948 referred to in footnote 55. On the procedure for consultations, see Edward Brau, “The consultation process of the Fund.” International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Finance & Development, Vol. 18 (December 1981), pp. 13-16.
Annual Report, 1982, Appendix B, Role of the Executive Director in Consultations, p. 131. See also the agreement that an Executive Director should receive adequate advance notice of the visit of senior staff to a member in the Executive Director’s constituency in order to permit him to play his proper role in relation to members in his constituency.
Rule N-16(c) of the Rules and Regulations provides that
“(i) Official travel by persons on the staff of the Fund to a member’s territory shall be undertaken only after consultation with the Executive Director appointed, elected, or designated by the member.
(ii) In addition, normally meetings of persons on the staff of the Fund with officials of a member to discuss official business shall be held only after consultation with the Executive Director appointed, elected, or designated by the member.”
The Executive Director with whom consultation must be held cannot veto travel. Some Executive Directors participate in consultation discussions with members in their constituency when a mission from the Fund visits one of these member countries. An Executive Director can be “designated” by a member to represent its interests if no Executive Director casts the number of votes allotted to the member because the member did not participate in the election of Executive Directors.
The subject was not mentioned in the decisions of January 12, 1948 (see footnote 55).
See, for example, the title of Article IX, Section 8.
“The Managing Director and the staff of the Fund, in the discharge of their functions, shall owe their duty entirely to the Fund and to no other authority. Each member of the Fund shall respect the international character of this duty and shall refrain from all attempts to influence any of the staff in the discharge of these functions.”—Article XII, Section 4(c).
See Gold, Voting and Decisions, pp. 99-104.
Annual Report, 1982, Appendix B, Role of the Executive Director in Consultations, p. 131.
P. 58. On the subject of surveillance as a whole, see pp. 56-58.
See Article I(i) and Article X.
See Article VIII, Section 5(c). and Joseph Gold, Order in International Finance, the Promotion of IMF Stand-By Arrangements, and the Drafting of Private Loan Agreements, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 39 (Washington, 1982), pp. 34—35. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold, Order in International Finance.)
The Economic Report of the President of the United States transmitted to the Congress in February 1982 contains the following comment on Article IV consultations:
“IMF Article IV consultations contribute to international stability in a number of ways. First, such consultations provide information to member governments regarding the national economic policies of other member governments. Such information may be helpful in shaping each member’s domestic policies as well as useful in avoiding conflicts because of misunderstandings. Second, Article IV consultations provide a valuable base of information for Fund staff assessments of global economic and exchange-rate developments which in turn provide useful information for national economic authorities. Third, Article IV consultations provide a framework for frank critiques among the representatives of member governments. Fourth, Article IV consultations provide a base from which all nations can develop a better understanding of the economic linkages among nations. And finally, these consultations can help a country to identify and address emerging payments problems at an early stage.” (Pp. 187-88.)
Article VIII, Section 5 (original, first, and present Articles).
Article IV, Section 3(b).
Article IV, Section 2(a).
Annual Report, 1982, p. 58.
For an analysis of categories of exchange arrangements and changes in them, see Annual Report, 1982, pp. 58-60.
Annual Report, 1982, p. 58. The Articles do not prescribe the periods at which consultations must be held under Article IV. The Fund has decided that in principle the consultations should be held annually (Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), p. 80-81). Article XIV requires consultations on the retention of restrictions under that provision to be held annually. Periodic consultations are foreseen on restrictions approved under Article VIII; ordinarily they would take place at intervals of about a year (Decision No. 1034-(60/27), June 1, 1960, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 209-11). The Fund is able to require consultation at any time when approving a restriction under Article VIII. Consultations under Article VIII or Article XIV are held (“comprehended”) within the framework of (i.e., at the same time as) consultations under Article IV whenever possible (Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), p. 80). The intervals for consultation, whether required by the Articles or by decisions of the Fund, are not observed in full because of practical difficulties, including those that are created by the growth in the Fund’s membership (Annual Report, 1982, p. 58).
Executive Board Decision No. 6790-(81/43), March 20, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, p. 227.
Annual Report, 1982, pp. 56-59.
IMF Survey, Vol. 11 (June 21, 1982), p. 177.
Summary Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors, September 6-9, 1982 (Washington, 1982), p. 293. (Hereinafter referred to as Summary Proceedings, 1982.)
Summary Proceedings, 1982, pp. 26-27.
Ibid., p. 236. Cf. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury and Governor of the Fund for the United States: “I am pleased to note that, with the assistance of the Managing Director, we have begun the process of enhanced international economic and monetary cooperation that was agreed upon at the Versailles summit.” (Ibid., pp. 50-51.)
E. M. Bernstein, “Some Economic Effects of Multiple Exchange Rates,” Staff Papers, Vol. 1 (1950-51), pp. 224-37; Margaret G. de Vries, “Multiple Exchange Rates: Expectations and Experiences,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 12 (July 1965), pp. 282-311; Margaret G. de Vries, “Multiple Exchange Rates,” in The International Monetary Fund 1945-1965: Twenty Years of International Monetary Cooperation, Volume II: Analysis, ed. by J. Keith Horsefield (Washington, 1969), pp. 122-51.
Article XIV, Section 2.
Article XIV, Section 2 (original, first) contained an exception that permitted a member to introduce restrictions on payments and transfers for current international transactions if the member’s territories had been occupied by the enemy during the Second World War. The rationale of this exception was that the member should be allowed to substitute its own exchange system for one that might have been imposed on it by the occupier. The Fund, however, did not understand that the member was absolved from the necessity to obtain the Fund’s approval for the introduction of multiple currency practices even under this exception, because of the effect of other provisions of the Articles. Executive Board Decision No. 237-2, December 18, 1947, Selected Decisions, Eighth Issue, p. 151. The exception in favor of members whose territories had been occupied has been deleted from the Articles by the Second Amendment, but the exception had been regarded as exhausted even before the Second Amendment became effective because of the passage of time since the end of the Second World War.
Article IV, Section 1.
The Fund decided that “[T]he term ‘similar fiscal agency’ means an institution which performs an important function or functions similar to those normally performed by a Treasury, or central bank, or stabilization fund.”— Executive Board Decision No. 298-3, April 14, 1948, Selected Decisions, Seventh Issue, p. 147.
Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 (original, first).
See also “New Guidelines on Multiple Currency Practices Establish Criteria for Implementing Fund Policy,” IMF Survey, Vol. 10 (July 6, 1981), pp. 197, 204-209.
No exception is made for exchange rates within margins prescribed by or under Schedule C because the margins can be broad (Proposed Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. A Report by the Executive Directors to the Board of Governors (Washington, 1976), Pt. II, Chap. C, Sec. 8).
Executive Board Decisions No. 3463-(71/126), December 18, 1971, and No. 4083-(73/104), November 7, 1973, Selected Decisions, Eighth Issue, pp. 14-21.
Article IV, Section 4(b)(original, first). The explanation in the text is not affected by the obligation of a member, under Article XI in all three versions of the Articles, to avoid certain transactions or practices with a nonmember or with persons in the nonmember’s territories. The nonmember, and not the member, has unquestioned jurisdiction over exchange transactions within the nonmember’s territories. Article XI prevents a member from engaging in transactions or practices within a nonmember’s territories that are permitted by the nonmember if the transactions would be contrary to the provisions of the Articles or the purposes of the Fund.
The exchange rates considered for the purpose of determining whether differences constitute multiple currency practices are not the buying and the selling rate for currencies but the midpoint between them because of the differences in spreads that may exist in exchange markets without constituting multiple currency practices.
Executive Board Decision No. 1034-(60/27), June 1, 1960, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 209-11.
Executive Board Decision No. 649-(57/33), June 26, 1957, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 223—25.
Executive Board Decision No. 1034(60/27), June 1, 1960, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, p. 210.
Executive Board Decision No. 144-(52/5l), August 14, 1952, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 203-204.
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, p. 412.
Art. XV, par. 4 (GATT).
The Fund is not prevented from examining a multiple currency practice that a member has not submitted for approval. The Fund may decide whether to approve or disapprove the practice. Moreover, the Fund may adopt a general decision that approves a category of multiple currency practices in advance.
Gold, Selected Essays, Chap. 3, pp. 148-81; see also Chap. 4, pp. 182-216.
Executive Board Decision No. 6838-(81/70). April 29. 1981. Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 49-53; Gold, Order in International Finance, pp. 44, 47.
The words “or intensifies” appear when practices of the kind referred to are already in existence when the arrangement is approved.
The words “or modifies” appear in the circumstances mentioned in footnote 99.
Subparagraph (iii) is largely repetitive because bilateral payments agreements that are inconsistent with Article VIII would fall within subparagraph (i) or (ii), but there is the theoretical possibility that a discriminatory currency arrangement would not be covered by subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
Executive Board Decision No. 6838-(81/70), April 29, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 49, 53; Gold, Order in International Finance, pp. 44, 47.
It is theoretically possible that the Fund could permit the resumption of purchases under a stand-by or extended arrangement without approving multiple currency practices that had been imposed or intensified.
Article V, Section 5; Article XXIII, Section 2; Rules and Regulations, Rules K-2 to K-4, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations, Thirty-Ninth Issue (Washington, July 1, 1982), p. 46.
Gold, Order in International Finance, pp. 17-35.
Executive Board Decision No. 6224-(79/l35), August 2, 1979, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, p. 57.
Ibid. For the full texts of the decisions on the Fund’s Compensatory Financing Facility, see Selected Decisions. Ninth Issue, pp. 56-63. Sec also Louis M, Gorcux, Compensatory Financing Facility, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 34 (Washington, 1980).
Executive Board Decision No. 6860-(81/81), May 13, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 59-63.
For discussions of cases involving this provision, see Joseph Gold, The Fund Agreement in the Courts (Washington, 1962) (hereinafter referred to as Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts); and Joseph Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II.
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 95-104, 129, 258-65.
J. Keith Horsefield, The International Monetary Fund, 1945-1965: Twenty Years of International Monetary Cooperation, Volume I: Chronicle, pp. 403-404, 482; and Volume II: Analysis, ed. by J. Keith Horsefield, pp. 548-49 (Washington, 1969).
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, pp. 30-32, 114-15, 146-47; Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 80-87, 208-209, 215, 274-75, 420-21.
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 95-104, 129, 258-65.
The effect of action in the Fund arose in Energetic Worsted Corporation v. The United States, Customs Appeal No. 5160 (April 7, 1966) in connection with countervailing duties under Section 303 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, but the case was decided on the ground that there was no satisfactory proof that the multiple rates resulted in a bounty (Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts: Volume II, pp. 104-107).
Annex I, Ad Art. VI, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Note 2. John J. Jackson, World Trade and the Law of GATT: A Legal Analysis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (New York, 1969), pp. 418, 868. (Hereinafter referred to as Jackson, World Trade and Law of GATT.)On the difference between antidumping and countervailing duties, see Kenneth W. Dam, The GATT: Law and International Economic Organization (University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 167. (Hereinafter referred to as Dam, GATT.) The Tokyo Round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations resulted in the negotiation of the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Relating to Subsidies and Countervailing Measures) and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Relating to Antidumping Measures).
Dam, GATT, p. 138. See also Jackson, World Trade and Law of GATT, p. 385.
Annex I, Ad Art. XVI, Sec. B, Note 1. Jackson, World Trade and Law of GATT, pp. 387, 872.
Patrick Low, “The Definition of Export Subsidies in GATT, “Journal of World Trade Law, Vol. 16 (September-October 1982), pp. 375-90, p. 388.
Annex I, Ad Art. VIII, Par. 1. Jackson, World Trade and Law of GATT, p. 869; see also p. 455,
Art. VII, Par. 4. Jackson, World Trade and Law of GATT, p. 814.
Pp. 47-48. See J. A. Usher, “Uniform External Protection—EEC Customs Legislation Before the Court of Justice,” Common Market Law Review, Vol. 19 (August 1982), pp. 389-412. Valuation is discussed at pp. 398-407, and the difficulties caused by translating the European Unit of Account (EUA) into currencies on the basis of par values under the Fund’s Articles before the EUA was defined by reference to a basket of currencies are discussed at pp. 398-99.
Executive Board Decisions No. 433-(55/42), June 22, 1955, No. 201-(53/29), May 4, 1953, No. 955-(59/45), October 23, 1959, and No. 1034-(60/27), June 1, 1960. See, for example, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 204, 205-208, 208-209, 209-11.
Article VII, Section 3.
Gold, Selected Essays, pp. 85, 154-56, 160-63, 175-79, 186-87, 207-11, 216.
Executive Board Decision No. l034-(60/27), June 1, 1960, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, pp. 209-11.
Article XI, Section 2. Rules and Regulations, Rules M-4 and M-5, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations, Thirty-Ninth Issue (Washington, July 1, 1982), p. 49.
Executive Board Decision No. 6790-(81/43), March 20, 1981, Selected Decisions, Ninth Issue, p. 226.
Boussac Saint-Freres SA v. Brigitte Gerstenmeier, Case 22/80  33 C.M.L.R. 202.
“...the benefits which may be derived by an undertaking, particularly if it is small, from invoicing goods intended for export in its national currency: simplified processing of invoices; elimination of the exchange risk, which is passed on to the customer; application of a uniform price to transactions on the home market and to exports.”—Mayras A.G., ibid., pp. 210-11.
Gold, “Variable Exchange Rates,” pp. 173-208.
John Chown, “The Tax Treatment of Foreign Exchange Fluctuations in the United States and the United Kingdom,” George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, Vol. 16 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 201-37: “The relevant law in both countries is both complex and unsatisfactory. It typically is based on statutes and cases that were enacted and decided when currency fluctations were not major problems. The American literature, in particular, has tended lo assume that other currencies, and not the dollar, fluctuate.” (P. 235.)
R. K. Ashton, “Foreign Exchange Gains/Losses Reconsidered, ”Business Law Review, Vol. 3 (July 1982), pp. 218-20.
William Dickey, “Antidumping: Currency Fluctuations as a Cause of Dumping Margins,” Internationa Trade Law Journal, Vol. 7 (Fall-Winter 1981-82), pp. 67-72.
“The ample literature on this subject was tinged by manifold reservations on the prospective role of the basket-type ECU, so much so as to warrant ones asking oneself whether it was wise to keep the European flag nailed to this particular masthead. During a seminar held in Luxembourg in 1978, one participant likened units of account to fungus growing on monetary rot. Indeed units of account of the basket type were designed in order to allow operators to balance out the exchange risks that they would run on individual currencies going to make up the basket. Such units of account absorbed the divergent movements as between the currencies making up the basket, movements which stemmed from the lack of harmonisation of national policies. The basket was the natural consequence of having autonomous national policies and therefore did not instrinsically belong to the process of European integration. On the contrary, it was the negation of the integration process.
“When the integration process was sufficiently advanced, the currencies concerned would return to exchange-rate stability in a system which even now was already substantially assisted by credits. The system would be defined by the parity grid and would need no numeraire. Gold, too, would be unnecessary (being replaced by credits) as would the basket of currencies, which would be made redundant by the disappearance of exchange risks.” (Paolo Baffi, Honorary Governor of the Bank of Italy, Il Sole-24 Ore, March 22, 1981(unpublished translation)). See also Atef Sultan, “Why the artificial dinar was created,” The Times (London), March 10, 1982, p. 21; “Eurobond is Linked to Oil Price,” Journal of Commerce, April 9, 1981, p. 6.
According to a Reuters news item of November 11, 1982, the Italian Treasury had announced that it would issue ECU 700 million of seven-year 13 percent Treasury certificates priced at par, of which ECU 650 million would be for public subscription in Italy. Annual interest payments and redemption would be made in ECUs if they become legal tender, or in lire at the average lira/ECU rates during the first 20 days of the October preceding redemption on November 22, 1989. Subscription would be in lire, at a price based on the ECU-lira rate prevailing on November 18, 1982.
Article VIII, Section 7; Article XXII.
“Ecus: The bankers’ choice,” TheEconomist, October 2, 1982, p. 52. See also H, Peter Dreyer, “Private Sector Use of ECU Rising,” Journal of Commerce, April 15, 1982, p. 6A; Christopher Hugues, “Nouvelles opérations en ECU,” Le Monde, June 27-28, 1982, p. 16; “ECUs Attracting More Interest,” Journal of Commerce, February 26, 1981, p. 6.
Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), p. 6.
Annual Report, 1982, p. 90.
International Legal Materials, Vol. 21 (May 1982), pp. 479-541.
Angola, Botswana, the Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius. Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
International Legal Materials, Vol. 21 (May 1982), pp. 525, 526.
A number of the states peg their currencies to the SDR.
The Miliangos doctrine applies, however, not only when the currency of account and the currency of payment are a foreign currency but also when the currency of account is a foreign currency and the currency of payment is sterling (George Veflings Rederi A/S v. President of India  1 W.L.R. 982). The plaintiff is entitled to the value he bargained for in terms of a foreign currency.
 3 All E.R. 801,  A.C. 443,  3 W.L.R. 758.
Pamphlet No. 19 (1976), pp. 33-38; Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 15-19: Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 63-69; Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 76-81; Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 61-65; See also “Yougoslavje, Les contrats intemationaux,” Droit et Pratique du Commerce International, Vol. 7 (1981), p. 141.
 1 All E.R. 225.
The order nisi operates as notice if withdrawals from the deposit account are subject, as they were in this case, to a period of notice (ibid., p. 227).
Ibid., pp. 228-29.
 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 231.
Ibid., p. 233.
Ibid., p. 234.
Services Europe Atlantique Sud (SEAS) of Paris v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag SVEA of Stockholm (The Folias) and The Despina R.  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;  3 W.L.R. 804; Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 77-79; Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 67-69.
This principle applies to the recovery of debt, damages for breach of contract, restitution because of unjust enrichment, and damages for tort. For a recent case on tort, see Hoffman v. Sofaer  1 W.L.R. 1350.
 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234.
The reasoning of the decision is criticized in the Law Commission’s Working Paper No. 80. Private International Law [:] Foreign Money Liabilities (London, 1981) (hereinafter referred to as Law Commission, Working Paper No.80), paragraphs 3.65-68, pp. 106-108, as inconsistent with the Miliangos doctrine because the decision reverted to the breach-day rule if the case is regarded as one to recover a dollar debt. That debt had been paid according to its sterling value as of the date of payment as required by the Miliangos doctrine. The Law Commission would consider the result defensible, however, if it were taken to involve the recovery of special damages for a specific and foreseeable loss consequent upon breach of contract by late payment. (Cf. Wadsworth v. Lydall  1 W.L.R. 599.) The decision is defended by Roger A. Bowles and Christopher J. Whelan, Comments on the Law Commission Working Paper No.80, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (mimeographed, Oxford, n.d.) submitted to the Law Commission, pp. 30-31. (Hereinafter referred to as Bowles and Whelan, Comments on Working Paper No.80.)
See footnote 165.
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics (October 1982), p. 15.
The Law Commission was established by Section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting reform of the law.
Law Commission, Working Paper No.80.
The Teh Hu  3 All E.R. at p. 1202. He was still pressing for change in another aspect of monetary law as late as 1981: “During the last 20 years the monetary systems of the world have changed radically. Sterling is no longer a stable currency. It floats in the wind. It changes like a weather-cock with every gust that blows. Likewise all foreign currencies.” (Techno-Impex v. Gebr. Van Weelde Scheepvaartkantoor B.V.  1 Q.B. at 665.
Law Commission, Working Paper No.80, pp. 180-81. (Citations of other paragraphs of the Working Paper have been deleted from the appendix to this pamphlet.)
See Georges Janson, “La protection de I’enterprise contre les risques de change. L’Institut Belgo-Luxembourgeois du Change et le controle des changes,” Revue de la Banque (Brussels) 2/1982, pp. 189-203. The author examines the techniques available to firms subject to the authority of the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union to protect themselves against exchange rate risks, and the changes that have occurred in the use of these techniques, but it is not part of his study to relate his conclusions to the law of Belgium and Luxembourg on the currency of judgments.
Bowles and Whelan, Comments on Working Paper No.80, pp. 65-77. See also the same authors’ “Law Commission Working Paper No. 80, Private International Law: Foreign Money Liabilities,” Modern Law Review, Vol. 45 (July 1982), pp. 434-46; “International Contracts: English Law and Floating Exchange Rates,” National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review (November 1981), pp. 27-36; “Foreign Money Liabilities: Comments on the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Working Paper No. 33” (submitted to the Commission).
Pp. 80-81. The Miliangos case has been followed in Cyprus. (Lamaig-nere v. Selene Shipping Agencies Ltd (1982) I, CLR 227 as discussed in International Financial Law Review (1982), p. 39.) For a discussion of U.S. law, see Thomas J. Egan, Jr., “Conversion of Judgments Measured in Foreign Currencies,” Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 39 (Winter 1982), pp. 165-184.
R.S.C. 1970, c. C-39.
Batavia Times Publishing Co. v. Davis  88 D.L.R. (3d) 145.
Khaled Chebil, “Les jugements relatifs aux créances libellées en monnaie étrangère en droit anglais, français et canadien,” McGill Law Journal, Vol. 27 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 299-329. (Hereinafter referred to as Chebil, Lesjugemenls.)
Batavia Times Publishing Co. v. Davis  88 D.L.R. (3d) 144.
Ibid., at p. 146.
Ibid., at p. 149.
For a discussion of English law on this topic, see Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 77-78.
For English practice, see “Practice Direction” by the Senior Master of the Supreme Court, December 18, 1975,  1 All E.R. 669-71. Where the plaintiff desires to proceed to enforce a judgment expressed in a foreign currency by the issue of a writ for enforcement (fieri facias), the praecipe for the issue of the writ must certify, for the purpose of determining the sterling equivalent of the judgment, the rate current in London for the foreign currency on the date nearest or most nearly preceding the date of the issue of the writ of fieri facias.
Batavia Times Publishing Co. v. Davis  88 D.L.R. (3d) at p. 154. The date of December 21,1977 was the date of the court’s judgment enforcing the Pennsylvania judgment. The “second judgment” refers to the first Ontario judgment and not to the second Ontario judgment of May 19, 1978 determining the date as of which the rate of exchange was to be chosen.
Unexplained delay by the judgment creditor in seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment may induce the court in which enforcement is sought to refuse application of the rate of exchange at the date of the second judgment if it is favorable to the creditor. See Ethel Groffier, “Droit international Privé,” Revue du Barreau, Vol. 39 (May-June 1979), pp. 653-55, discussing the Quebec case Kraft v. Otto (1978) C.S. 752. For the practice of courts in the United States, see R. Doak Bishop and Susan Burnette, “United States Practice Concerning the Recognition of Foreign Judgments,” International Lawyer, Vol. 16 (Summer 1982), pp. 425-42, at pp. 439-40.
Am-Pac Forest Products Inc. v. Phoenix Doors Ltd. and Arab and Arab (Third Party)  14.B.C.L.R. 63.
Ibid., at p. 66.
Re Canadian Vinyl Industries Inc.; Textilwerke Gebrüder Hoon v. Corber (1978) 29 C.B.R. 12.
R.S.C. 1970, c. B-3.
Re Canadian Vinyl Industries Inc.;Textilwerke Gebrüder Hoon v. Corber (1978) 29 C.B.R. at p. 23.
Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd.  A.C. 1007. See Clive M. Schmitthoff, “Non stamus decisis,” Europäisches Rechtsdenkenin Geschichte und gegenwart; Festschrift für Helmut Coing zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Norbert Horn (Munich, 1982), pp. 469-82.
(1978) 29 C.B.R. at p. 23. See also p. 25. For a discussion of Canadian cases, see Chebil, Les jugements, pp. 320-21.
 2 All E.R. 669.
Ibid., at p. 673.
For a discussion of Re Dynamics Corporation of America, see Law Commission, Working Paper No.80, paragraphs 3,39-3.49, pp. 89-96. The Commission approves of the decision and does not propose a modification of it.
 2 All E.R. 183. See Michael Burke, “Foreign Currency Claims: Pari Passu May Not Mean Equal,” Business Law Review (June 1982), pp. 183-84.
The rate was the buying rate for sterling against the foreign currency ( 2 All E.R. at p. 190).
Ibid., p. 189; see also pp. 194-95, 198-99.
Two members of the Court of Appeal left open the question whether dividends to creditors whose claims had been in foreign currencies could be recalculated on the basis of later exchange rates if after all creditors’ claims were satisfied, including claims to post-liquidation interest, assets remained that would go to the shareholders of the company (ibid., pp. 195-96, 199).
Chebil, Les jugements, p. 325.
Ibid., p. 327.
Ibid., pp. 327-28. See also the discussion of other Canadian eases in Canadian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 19 (1981). pp, 390-91. In Williams &Glyn’s Bank Ltd. v. Belkin Packaging Ltd,  108 D.L.R. (3d) 585, the British Columbia Supreme Court followed the Batavia Times case, although the action was for breach of contract and not for the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Chebil, Lesjugements, p. 320, footnote 88 (referring to the Commission’s Working Paper No.33: Foreign Money Liabilities (1981)).
 1 NZLR 361. Johanna Vroegop, “Exchange Losses on an International Sale of Goods,” NewZealand Law Journal (January 1982), pp. 3-5.
 1 NZLR, at p. 364, It has been pointed out that the Miliangos doctrine, in holding that a Swiss franc remains a Swiss franc, is an application of the principle of nominalism, while the pre-Miliangos principle that a promise to pay Swiss francs had to be transformed into an obligation to pay sterling was not an application of nominalism (Bowles and Whelan, Comments on Working Paper No.80, pp. 7-8).
 1 NZLR, at p. 365.
See Charles Bennett, “Recent Cases on Claims for Interest,” New Law Journal, Vol. 131 (October 15, 1981), pp. 1065-67.
Law Commission, Working Paper No.80, paragraphs 4.13—4.21, pp. 127-33.
 3 W.L.R. 477;  3 All E.R. 599;  Q.B. 489. Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 62-63. The Law Commission quotes with approval the views of Roger A. Bowles and Christopher J, Whelan in “The Currency of Suit in Actions for Damages,” McGill Law Journal, Vol. 25 (No. 2, 1979), p. 236. These two authors have criticized the decision in the case because simple interest was awarded, while compound interest would have been better compensation for the opportunity costs that the plaintiff was made to bear (Bowles and Whelan, Comments on Working Paper No.80, pp. 38-44).
Bowles and Whelan, Comments on Working Paper No.80, pp. 23-27, 32-36.
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
 3 All E.R. 851.
Ibid., p. 862.
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 236-41; see also pp. 95-104.
“Exchange contracts which involve the currency of any member and which are contrary to the exchange control regulations of that member maintained or imposed consistently with this Agreement shall be unenforceable in the territories of any member....”
The English Law Commission’s Working Paper No.80 does not consider Article VIII, Section 2(b). It raises the question whether contracting parties can contract for payment by one to the other in foreign currency and can exclude the discharge of a judgment in the sterling equivalent at the date of payment (paragraphs 320-23, pp. 75-77). The Law Commission favors the legality of this contractual provision in circumstances in which the court thinks it appropriate to give a judgment that precludes discharge in sterling. One reason given for conferring this discretion on courts is that exchange controls may preclude payment in the foreign currency, but the assumed exchange controls are those of the United Kingdom. Article VIII. Section 2(b) applies to the exchange control regulations of members of the Fund other than those of the country of the forum.
See, for example, Sharif v. Azad  1 Q.B. 605,  3 W.L.R. 1285, 3 All E.R. 785 (C.A.); Sing Batra v. Ebrahim, The Times (London), May 3, 1977, p. 11. Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 107-16, 258—65, and passim.
Law Commission, Working Paper No.80, paragraph 2.18, p. 19.
Note, however, “Ex-Im Bank to Offer Guarantee Credits in Foreign Currencies,” Wall Street Journal, March 12, 1980, p. 21, in which it is reported that the U.S. Import-Export Bank will provide U.S. exporters greater flexibility in arranging financing for foreign orders by guaranteeing private export credits and insurance contracts denominated in “freely convertible currencies” (including the deutsche mark, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, pound sterling, Netherlands guilder, Swedish krona, etc.). In the past, guarantees were limited to obligations denominated in U.S. dollars. Under the new practice, on a default under a loan extended by a U.S. bank or bank abroad to help a foreign buyer purchase U.S. goods or services, the Eximbank will pay the lender in the foreign currency specified in the loan agreement; but the Bank gives no indemnity against foreign exchange risks. According to the Bank’s President, some potential foreign buyers preferred to do business in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, because these currencies could be borrowed at lower interest rates.
Joseph Gold, The Fund’s Concepts of Convertibility, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 14 (Washington, 1971), p. 9.
Council of Europe, European Conventions and Agreements, Vol. II, 1961-70 (Strasbourg, 1972), pp. 310-16. The text provides, inter alia, that a sum of money due in a currency other than that of the place of payment may be paid in the currency of the place of payment, unless a different intention of the parties appears or a different usage is applicable (Annex, Article 1(1)).
The translation is to be effected at the rate of exchange at the date of payment (Annex, Article 3). In the event of proceedings for the recovery of a sum of money in a currency other than that of the forum, the creditor, at his choice, may demand payment in the currency to which he is entitled or the equivalent in the currency of the forum at the rate of exchange at the date of payment (Annex, Article 5). If a judgment entitles the creditor either to an amount in a currency other than that of the forum or the equivalent in the currency of the forum, and a depreciation of the former currency in relation to the latter currency occurs between the date of judgment and the date of payment, the debtor must pay an additional amount corresponding to the difference (Annex, Article 7(i)).
See Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), p. 81.
Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 60-61.
Financial Accounting Standards Board of the Financial Accounting Foundation, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.52: Foreign Currency Translation (Stamford, Connecticut, December 1981.).
See Michael A. Perlino, “Firms Now Able to Examine Effects of Currency Shifts on Assets Abroad,” Journal of Commerce, March 15, 1982, pp. 13C, 14C; David B. Pearson, “Accounting for Foreign Currency Transactions Still Troublesome for Business,” Journal of Commerce, May 18, 1981, pp. 2A, 10A; Leslie Wayne, “Foreign Accounting Change,” New York Times, December 8, 1981, pp. D1, D8.
See Proceedings of the Conference on the Internationalization of the Capital Markets, March 19-21, 1981, New York, ed. by Joan B. Ellsworth, Robert H. Mundheim, and Douglas W. Hawes (Amsterdam, 1981), pp. 178-79.
“The monetary reserves of the Bundesbank as reflected in its Weekly Return,” Monthly Report of the Deutsche Bundesbank, Vol. 34 (January 1982), pp. 13-16.
See footnote 188.
On the Miliangos doctrine, see footnote 165. On bankruptcy and liquidation, see Michael Burke, “Foreign Currency Claims: Pari Passu May Not Mean Equal,” Business Law Review, Vol. 3 (June 1982), pp. 183-84.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Currency Pooling System (Washington, August 1980).
Article XIX, Sections 5 and 7. Joseph Gold, Use, Conversion, and Exchange of Currency Under the Second Amendment of the Fund’s Articles, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 23 (Washington, 1978), pp. 49-53.
The equal value principle applies also to agreements between members for the transfer of SDRs, but the Fund is authorized to adopt policies under which in exceptional circumstances members entering into these agreements are permitted to agree on exchange rates that do not conform to the equal value principle (Article XIX, Section 7(b)). For decisions to adopt such policies, a majority of 85 percent of the total voting power is required, and for decisions on particular transactions under the policies a majority of 70 percent of the total voting power is necessary.
The principle applies also to “operations” in SDRs. (For the difference between “operations” and “transactions,” see Article XXX(i).) The Fund may dispense with the principle when prescribing, by a 70 percent majority, operations in SDRs that members may enter into by agreement (Article XIX, Section 2(c)). The Fund has dispensed with the principle in swaps and forward operations in SDRs that it has authorized (Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 10—11).
On all operations and transactions in SDRs, sec International Monetary Fund, Users’ Guide to the SDR: A Manual of Transactions and Operations in Special Drawing Rights (Washington, 1982).
Article V, Section 10.
 29 C.B.R. 12.
To the argument that the debtor was not able to make a contract with his bank, the court responded in a way that negated its own rationale. “[O]ne need only point out that the foreign currency claims would normally be a small portion of the total claims filed. Therefore such a difficulty would not be insurmountable.” —Ibid., p. 22.
See footnote 196.
 1 NZLR 361, at p. 366.
Ibid., pp. 367, 381-82, but note p. 371, lines 15 to 22. There was evidence that the Co-operative had suffered more loss with the forward exchange contracts it had arranged than it would have suffered without them. The exchange rate at the time of a rollover was substituted for the preceding exchange rate, and the Co-operative incurred costs. The Co-operative, however, limited this item in its claim to damages to the losses it would have incurred without forward exchange contracts (p. 367).
Ibid., p. 377.
Butter-und Eier-Zentrale Nordmark eG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, Case 38/79  2 C.M.L.R.753.
Article IV, Section 3(ii) (original, first).
Schedule C, paragraph 5.
Gold, “Variable Exchange Rates”, pp. 192-95.
Art. 31 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, TD/ TIN. 6/14, July 6, 1981, p. 29).
Federal Maritime Commission Docket No. 82-36; 47 federal Register 31408 (July 20, 1982).
The base level would be the exchange rate of the trade currency in relation to the tariff currency selected by the carrier or conference for a date within the period of 30 days prior to the filing of a schedule.
For an example of the difficulty of imposing surcharges in the days of the par value system, see Australia/U.S. Atlantic & Gulf Conference, Proposed Imposition of Currency Adjustment Surcharge (Federal Maritime Commission, Docket No. 72-5, January 28, 1972) and Federal Maritime Commission v. Australia/U.S. Atlantic & Gulf Conference et al. (337 F. Supp. 1032 (1972)). See Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 161-71.
Publishing and Filing Tariffs by Common Carriers in the Foreign Commerce of the United States: Requirements for Filing Currency Adjustment Factors Reflecting Changes in the Exchange Rate of Tariff Currencies (Federal Maritime Commission, Docket 82-36 (46 C.F.R. Part 536).
Gold, “Variable Exchange Rates,” pp. 197-99. The case for averaging exchange rates is that they may deviate from the trend for short periods but not over the longer run.
T. R. O’Brien, “Currency adjustment factors: some alternative strategies,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 7 (1980), pp. 271-81.
Joseph Gold, “Development of the SDR as Reserve Asset, Unit of Account, and Denominator: A Survey,” George Washington University Journal of International Law and Economics, Vol. 16 (No. 1, 1981), pp. 43—44.
94 Stat. 1555. See Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), p. 79.
Report to the Congress of the Commission on the Role of Gold in the Domestic and International Monetary Systems (March 1982), 2 vols. (Hereinafter referred to as Gold Commission Report.) See Phillip Cagan. Current Problems of Monetary Policy: Would the Gold Standard Help? (American Enterprise Institute, Washington, 1982).
American Arts Gold Medallion Act of November 10, 1978, Public Law 95-630.
For a memorandum by the Office of the General Counsel of the Treasury on “Some Implications of Legal Tender Status of U.S. Currency,” sec Gold Commission Report, Vol. II, pp. 525-29.
A majority did not exist in favor of the proposal that the Treasury should be required to stand ready to purchase coin offered to it at the market price on the day of redemption (Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, p. 8).
The sale of gold certificates as securities, whether registered or made out to bearer, that would give the holder a right to a specified amount of gold, has been proposed in Switzerland. According to Fritz Zimmermann, “Verwahrung von Wertpapieren und Gold der Kunden bei Schweizer Banken” (Custody of Customers’ Securities and Gold at Swiss Banks), information (Basel), No. 65 (November 1981), pp. 30-35, only the Swiss National Bank would be empowered to issue such certificates because they would be considered surrogates for the note issue; and an infringement of this monopoly would be punishable. The Swiss National Bank has not exercised its right to issue gold certificates.
The author distinguishes these certificates from (i) an arrangement under which the owner of gold becomes a co-owner with others by depositing his gold in a collective account with a bank; and (ii) a right to call for the delivery of gold as the holder of a noninterest-bearing account opened for the purpose by a bank, which gives a contractual right but not ownership of gold until gold is called for and obtained. The holder of the account does not pay the Swiss purchase tax on gold transactions until he calls for gold.
“The U.S. Government has the power to regulate the value of coin and currency, U.S. or foreign, in this country and wherever the U.S. Constitution applies overseas. This constitutional authority applies to foreign gold coins. It also applies to bullion, whether or not it is legal tender in the United States or elsewhere. States cannot assess sales taxes on gold coin and bullion because the monetary and foreign commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution give the U.S. government the sovereign power to regulate the value of money, including gold coin and bullion, and to conduct foreign commerce. No act or omission of the U.S. government has given this power to the states.” (Pp. 343-44.)
“It is a widespread view among members that gold continues to be a reserve asset and continues to have monetary functions. This view persists notwithstanding the change in the legal status of gold and the absence of its use in official settlements or in support of currencies. Gold is still a reserve asset that is desired by many members, not only because it has appreciated in value and may appreciate further, but also because it gives a sense of confidence to its owners and to others. According to unofficial reports, some monetary authorities in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America have purchased gold in the market in order to diversify their reserves. The continuing attitude to gold is no surprise to the drafters of the Second Amendment, because, as realists, their objective did not go beyond a gradual reduction in the role of gold.”
The authors note also the role of gold in the European Monetary System (see Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 56-57).
See also the discussion of the reactions by the courts of jurisdictions other than the United States to the question whether krugerrands are means of payment or goods (Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), pp. 86-87).
The Secretary of the Treasury has authority, under 31 U.S.C. 733 and 734, to sell gold, and with the approval of the President, to purchase gold, at home or abroad, in such amounts and manner and at such rates as he deems to be in the public interest. In addition, the Secretary, with the approval of the President, is authorized to deal in gold and foreign exchange for the account of the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) that was created by Section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 822a). The assets of the ESF have not included gold since December 1974.
The Treasury could revalue the gold stock without legislative approval, but this action would have no economic consequences because gold certificates have been issued to the full extent permitted by present law. The issue of certificates is based on the last par value of the U.S. dollar (Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, pp. 135-36).
See Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), pp. 84-85.
See Peter Truell, “Countries Try Swapping Gold Holdings For Cash to Fill Short-Term Credit Needs,” Wall Street Journal, December 1, 1982, p. 33. This article discusses the practice, the parties involved, and the amounts involved in recent transactions. The relationship of the practice to the gold futures market is mentioned. See also Roy W. Jastram, “World Illiquidity and Central Bank Gold Reserves,” Wall Street Journal, December 16, 1982, p. 30.
Gold is not in use as U.S. currency or backing for currency. Public Law 90-296 amended the Federal Reserve Act by eliminating the requirement that the Federal Reserve Banks maintain reserves in gold certificates of not less than 25 percent against Federal Reserve notes in circulation. In addition, this law eliminated the gold reserve requirement for U.S. notes and Treasury notes of 1890. Reserves now consist of the accounts of depository institutions at Federal Reserve Banks and their holdings of vault cash (Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, p. 136).
Article IV, Section 2(b).
Public Law 94-564, sec. 9.
Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 40-41.
Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 52-55; Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), p. 89.
Article V, Section 12(d).
Except in special circumstances under the liquidation provisions of Schedule K. The Fund has no obligation to use gold in a settlement of accounts with a member that withdraws from the Fund (Schedule J).
Article V, Section 12(c). The Fund must consult the member for whose currency gold is sold, and its currency held by the Fund in the General Resources Account may not be increased by the sale to a point at which the member would have to pay charges, unless the member concurs. The member may request the Fund to sell its currency for the currency of another member to the extent that the exchange would prevent the accrual of charges. The Fund must consult the member for whose currency the exchange would be made, and the exchange must not impose on this member the obligation to pay charges. Consultations with, and the concurrence of, members arc necessary because various rights and obligations are affected by the level of the Fund’s holdings of their currencies in the General Resources Account. For the Fund’s treatment of the proceeds of sale, see Article V, Section 12(f).
Article V, Section 12(e).
Summary Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Boards of Governors, September 1-5, 1975 (Washington, 1975), pp. 299-304.
Article V, Section 12(b).
Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, p. 20
Ibid., p. 21.
Article IV, Section 2(b).
For discussion of the two kinds of international effect, see Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, pp. 140—41.
Gold Commission Report, Vol. I, p. 142.
For the legal history of gold under the Articles, see Joseph Gold, “Gold in International Monetary Law: Change, Uncertainty, and Ambiguity,” Journal of International Law and Economies, Vol. 15 (No. 2, 1981), pp. 323-70.
See Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 52-55; Pamphlet No. 26 (1979), pp. 32-35; Pamphlet No. 33 (1980), p. 89. Egypt, Venezuela, and Ecuador have joined the members that value their gold holdings on the basis of market prices.
See, for example, Re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 535 F. Supp. 833 (1982) (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, February 16, 1982), in which the last official dollar price of gold was adopted for the purpose of applying the Poincaré franc in the Warsaw Convention, and Boehringer Mannheim Diagnostics, Inc. al/k/la Hycel v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 531 F. Supp. 344 (1981) (United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, November 24, 1981), in which the market price was chosen for the same purpose.
Rechtspraak van de Week, May 30, 1981, pp. 321-30; Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 451-54.
Pamphlet No. 22 (1977), pp. 33-34.
Pamphlet No. 36 (1981), p. 34.
Docket No. 82-7012.
525 F. Supp. 1288.
Gold, Fund Agreement in the Courts, Volume II, pp. 456-57.
Docket No. 82-7012, Memorandum Opinion, p. 4. Stephen A. Silard, “U.S. Court Decision on Gold Unit of Account Holds Warsaw Liability Limits Unenforceable,” IMF Survey, Vol. 12 (January 12, 1983), pp. 11-12.
Docket No. 82-7012, Memorandum Opinion, p. 13. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided on August 24, 1982 that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in their contention that the limitation provisions of the Warsaw Convention were inapplicable because they were unconstitutional. The court did not deal with the argument, which may not have been advanced, that the limits were unenforceable, although the court said that “the treaty limitation is expressed in gold ‘Poincaré’ francs, and what the present value of the limitations may be, given the increased dollar value of gold, is an open question.” (In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974, Causey et al. v. Pan American Airways. Inc. et al. (684 F. 2d 1301).)
Petition, pp. 11-12.
Deere & Company v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Memorandum Opinion, December 30, 1982, Index No. 81 C 4726).
Gesetz zu den Protokollen vom 19. November 1976 und vom 5. Juli 1978 uber die Ersetzung des Goldfrankens durch das Sonderziehungsrecht des Internationalen Währungsfonds sowie zur Regelung der Umrechnung des Goldfrankens in haftungsrechtlichen Bestimmungen (Goldfrankenrechnungsgesetz) (Law concerning the Protocols of November 19, 1976 and July 5, 1978 on the substitution of the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing right for the gold franc and regulating translation of the gold franc under liability provisions (Gold Franc Translation Law)) (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part II, Z 1998AX, 1980, No. 23, issued in Bonn, June 13, 1980).
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CASES AND CONSOLIDATED INDEX OF TOPICS
The following references to the six pamphlets surveying legal developments involving SDRs, currencies, and gold are made in the Consolidated List of Cases Cited and the the Consolidated Index of Topics.
|SDRs, Gold, and Currencies:|
|Sixth Survey of New Legal|
|SDRs, Currencies, and|
|Gold: Fifth Survey|
|of New Legal Developments||36(1981)||V|
|SDRs. Currencies, and|
|Gold: Fourth Survey of|
|New Legal Developments||33(1980)||IV|
|SDRs, Gold, and Currencies:|
|Third Survey of New Legal|
|Floating Currencies, SDRs,|
|and Gold: Further Legal|
|Floating Currencies, Gold,|
|and SDRs: Some Recent|
|Am-Pac Forest Products Inc. v. Phoenix Door Ltd.||VI:50|
|et al.  14 B.C.L.R. 63|
|BataviaTimesPublishingCo.v. Davis  88||VI:49|
|D.L.R. (3d) 144|
|Re Canadian Viny lindustries Inc; Textilwerke||VI:51, 67|
|Gebrüder Hoon v. Corber  29 C.B.R. 12|
|Kraft v. Otto  C.S. 752||VI:125 (n. 176)|
|Williams & Clyn’s BankLtd. v. Belkin Packaging||VI:126 (n. 194)|
|Ltd.  108 D.L.R. (3d) 585|
|Lamaignere v. Selene Shipping Agencies Ltd ||VI:124 (n. 166)|
|I, CLR 227|
|Allgemeine Gold-und-Silberscheideanstalt v.||IV:87 (n. 239)|
|Customs and Excise Commissioners, The Times|
|(London), December 11, 1979, p. 15|
|Barclays Bank International Ltd. v. Levin Brothers||IV:81 (n. 214)|
|(Bradford)Ltd.  3 All E.R. 900;  3||11:15 (n. 48),|
|W.L.R. 852;  Q.B. 270||16 (n. 53)|
|B.P. Exploration Co.(Libya) Ltd. v. Hunt (No. 2)||V:62 (n. 176),|
| 1 W.L.R. 783||63 (n. 181)|
|British and French Trust Corp. v. New Brunswick||III:51 (n. 175)|
|Ry.  4 All E.R. 516 (C.A.)|
|Choice Investments Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (Midland||VI:44|
|Bank Ltd. garnishee)  1 All E.R. 225|
|The Despina R.  3 W.L.R. 597: ||VI: 123 (n. 154)|
|3 All E.R. 874; The Times (London), February 2,||IV:77 (nn. 197,|
|1977, p. 9;  3 W.L.R. 804;  1 Lloyd’s||198)|
|Rep. 1||III:64 (n. 211),|
|65 (nn. 212,|
|66 (n. 214),|
|67 (n. 215)|
|II:18 (n. 63)|
|Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd. and Another v.||V:61 (n. 173)|
|Canterbury City Council and Others  2 All|
|E.R. 118;  1 All E.R. 928|
|Re Dynamics Corporation of America and Another||VI: 52|
| 3 All E.R. 1046;  2 All E.R. 669||II:88 (n. 49)|
|Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Grosvenor,||II:59 (n. 200)|
|426 F. Supp. 67 (1976)|
|Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v.||II:89 (n. 54)|
|Tradax Export SA  2 All E.R. 41|
|George Veflings Rederi A/S v. President of India and||VI:122 (n. 145)|
|other appeals. The Bellami, The Pearl Merchant,||IV:79 (n. 201)|
|The Doric Chariot  1 W.L.R. 982;  1|
|All E.R. 380|
|The Halcyon the Great  1 All E.R. 882||I:36 (fn. 70)|
|Helmsing Schiffahrts G.m.b.H. & Co. K.G. v.||V:63 (n. 182),|
|Malta Drydocks Corporation and Others  2||64 (nn. 183-85),|
|Lloyd’s Law Reports, 444 (Q.B.)||65 (n. 189)|
|Hoffman v. Sofaer  1 W.L.R. 1350||VI: 123 (n. 155)|
|JeanKraut A.G. v. Albany Fabrics Ltd.  2 All||II:16 (n. 55)|
|Jugoslavenska Oceanska Plovidba v. Castle||I:33|
|Investment Co. Inc.  3 All E.R. 498|
|Re Lines Bros. Ltd.  2 All E.R. 183||VI:53|
|Lively Ltd. and Another v. City of Munich  3||VI: 59|
|All E.R. 851||III:57 (nn. 196, 197)|
|II:6 (n. 24), 7|
|Malhotra v. Choudhury  1 All E.R. 186||V:65 (n. 188)|
|Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. ||VI:44, 46, 48, 54,|
|Q.B. 487;  1 All E.R. 1076;  3 All||56, 60, 61|
|E.R. 801;  A.C. 443||V:61 (nn. 171, 173,|
|62 (n. 177),|
|63 (n. 178), 64, 65|
|IV:77 (n. 195), 78,|
|79, 80, 81|
|III:59 (nn. 200-202),|
|63 (n. 209),|
|66, 67, 69|
|II:15 (nn. 47, 51),|
|16 (nn. 52, 54),|
|18, 23, 62,|
|88 (n. 49),|
|89 (nn. 53, 54)|
|Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. (No. 2)||VI:57|
| 3 W.L.R. 477;  3 All E.R. 599;||V:63 (nn. 179-80),|
| Q.B. 489||65 (n. 189)|
|Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd. and Others v.||II:62 (n. 209)|
|Marden, The Times (London), May 12, 1977,|
|New Brunswick Ry. v. British and French Trust||III:51 (n. 175)|
|Corp.  A.C. 1|
|Ozalid Group (Export) Ltd. v. African Continental||VI:45, 57|
|Bank Ltd.  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 231|
|Schorsch Meier GmbH v. Hennin  1 All E.R.||I:33-35, 36, 37|
|Services Europe Atlantique Sud (SEAS) of Paris v.||VI:123 (n. 154)|
|Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag SVEA of Stockholm||V:65 (n. 188)|
|(The Folios)  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;  3||IV:78 (nn. 199, 200)|
|W.L.R. 804  2 All E.R. 764 (C.A.); The||III:67 (n. 217)|
|Times (London), February 23, 1978, p. 11||II:90 (n. 55),|
|91 (n. 63)|
|Sharif v. Azad  1 Q.B. 605;  3 W.L.R.||VI: 127 (n. 210)|
|1285;  3 All E.R. 785 C.A.|
|Sing Batra v. Ebrahim, The Times (London),||VI:127 (n. 210)|
|May 3, 1977, p. 11; Halsbury’s Laws of England:|
|Annual Abridgment, 1977 (London, 1978), 453,|
|Techno-Impex v. Gebr. Van Weelde||VI:123 (n. 162)|
|Scheepvaartkantoor B. v.  1 O.B. 648|
|The Teh Hu  3 All E.R. 1200||VI:123 (n. 162)|
|Treseder-Griffin and Another v. Co-operative||II:61-62|
|Insurance Society Ltd. [19561 2 Q.B. 127||(nn. 206-208)|
|United Railways of the Havana and Regla||VI:125 (n. 183)|
|Warehouses, Ltd., In re  2 All E.R. 332;||I:36 (fn. 72)|
| A.C. 1007|
|Wadsworth v. Lydall  1 W.L.R. 599||VI: 123 (n. 157)|
|W. Bruns & Company of Hamburg v. Standard||IV:65 (nn. 168-70)|
|Fruit and Steamship Company of New Orleans|
|(The“Brunsrode”)  Lloyd’s Law Reports,|
|Vol. 2, 74;  Lloyd’s Law Reports, Vol. 1,|
|Compagnie des Assurances Maritimes, Aèriennes et||II:24 (n. 63)|
|Terrestres (C.A.M.A.T.) v. Garcia et Soc. Dabi,|
|Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, Vol,|
|65 (1976), pp. 73-79|
|Le Havre, Judgment of Commercial Court, Au-||VI:114 (n. 44)|
|gust 24, 1978, Droit maritime français (1980),|
|Federal Republic of Germany|
|Matter of the Khendrik Kuivas, Hamburg District||V:66 (n. 192)|
|Court, No. Div. 64, Ref. No. 64 SRV 6/76||III:15, 30, 36|
|II:56 (n. 192)|
|Transarctic Shipping Corporation, Inc. Monrovia.||II:33 (n. 114),|
|Liberia v. Krögerwerft (Kröger Shipyard)||56 (n. 191), 57|
|Company, European Transport Law, Vol. 9||I:17-21, 22, 24-25,|
|(1974), pp. 701-710||26, 28, 30, 31, 39|
|United States of America v. Indus G.m.b.H. Court||III:62 (n. 208)|
|of Appeals, Karlsruhe, 10 U 94/75, February 13,|
|Zakoupolos v. Olympic Airways Corp., Judgment||II:55 (n. 189)|
|No. 256/1974, Court of Appeals, Athens,||I:30-31 (fn. 55)|
|January 10, 1974|
|Balkan Bulgarian Airlines v. Tammaro, Judgment of||IV:90-91|
|October 25, 1976, Milan, Il Diritto Marittimo|
|Bank of Okinawa v. Tokai Electric Construction||II:19 (n. 67)|
|K.K. Hanrei Jiho (No. 782), 19 (Sup. Ct., 3rd|
|P.B., July 15, 1975), Law in Japan: An Annual,|
|Vol. 9 (1976), pp. 158-59|
|“Air Madagascar,” the Malagasy National Air||II:93 (n. 86)|
|Transport Company and United Experts, Inc.|
|(S.A. des Experts Reunis) v. Musset, Revue de|
|Droit Uniforme, I (1976), pp. 236-39|
|Avandero N.v. v. Westeuropese Transportmaat-||V:81 (n. 232)|
|schappij Wetram N.V., Judgment of May 12,|
|1978, Schip en Schade Vol. 23, No. 5 (May 1979),|
|Giants Shipping Corporation v. State of the||VI: 84|
|Netherlands (The Blue Hawk), Rechtspraak van|
|de Week, May 30, 1981. 321-30|
|Hornlinie v. Société Nationale des Petroles||II:33 (n. 113),|
|d’ Aquitaine (“The Hornland”), Nedertandse||56 (n. 190)|
|Jurisprudence (1972), No. 269, pp. 728-38||I:22. 30. 31|
|Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd. v. New Zealand||VI:55, 67|
|Co-operative Wool Marketing Association Ltd.|
| 1 NZLR 361|
|Comtnerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v. Large, Scots||IV:80 (n. 208)|
|Law Times (Reports)  p. 219|
|Re MotorShip “Saga,“ Judgment of the General||II:55 (n. 188), 56|
|Average Assessor, Gotenborg, October 2, 1973||I:31 (fn. 56)|
|In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974,||VI: 133 (n. 285)|
|Causey et al. v. Pan American Airways, Inc. et|
|al., 684 F. 2d. 1301|
|Re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March||VI:87, 133 (n. 277)|
|14, 1980, 535 F. Supp. 833 (1982)|
|Australia/U.S. Atlantic & Gulf Conference,||VI:129 (n. 241)|
|Proposed Imposition of Currency Adjustment|
|Surcharge, Federal Maritime Commission, Docket|
|No. 72-5, January 28, 1972|
|Aztec Properties, Inc. v. Union Planters National||I:71 (fn. 159)|
|Bank of Memphis (Tenn. Sup. Ct.), 530 S.W. 2d|
|756 (1975); 44 L.W. 2209 (November 11, 1975)|
|Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Zurich General Accident &||I:68-69|
|Liability Ins. Co. Ltd., 307 U.S. 265 (1939)|
|Boehringer Mannheim Diagnostics, Inc. a/k/a Hycel||VI: 133 (n. 277)|
|V. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 531 F.|
|Supp. 344 (1981)|
|Deere & Company v. Deutsche Lufthansa||VI: 87|
|Aktiengesellschaft, N.D. Ill., Index No. 81 C 4726|
|(December 30, 1982)|
|Energetic Worsted Corporation v. The United States.||VI:120 (n. 115)|
|Customs Appeal No. 5160 (April 7, 1966)|
|Equitable Life Assur. Soc, of U.S. v. Grosvenor,||III:49 (n. 169)|
|426 F. Supp. 67 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Tenn.,|
|Federal Maritime Commission v. Australia/U.S.||VI: 129 (n. 241)|
|Atlantic & Gulf Conference et al., 337 F. Supp.|
|Feldman v. Great Northern Railway Company, 428||III:49 (n. 169)|
|F. Supp. 979 (U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y., 1977)|
|Franklin Mint Corporation et al. v. Trans World||VI:85, 113 (n. 37)|
|Airlines Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1288, Docket No.|
|Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Henwood, 307||I:68-69|
|U.S. 247 (1939)|
|Henderson et al. v. Mann Threatres Corporation of||III:49 (n, 169)|
|California, 65 Cal. App. 3d 397; 135 Cal. Reptr.|
|266 (Calif. Ct. App., 2d App. Dist., Div. 1,|
|1976); cert. den. 434 U.S. 825|
|Holyoke Water Power Co. v. American Writing||III:50 (n. 170)|
|Paper Co. (1937) 300 U.S. 324|
|In the Matter of Arbitration of Disputes Relating to||III:62 (n. 208)|
|the Charters of M.S. John Wilson and M.S.||II:10 (n. 35)|
|Chilean Nitrate, both dated June 12, 1968, between|
|Ocean Transport Line, Inc., as Owner, and|
|Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation, as Charterer,|
|1973 A.M.C. 1489|
|N.v. Motorscheepv. Maats. Josephine and Dammers||I:71 (fn. 159)|
|& Van Der Heide’s Shipping & Trading Co., Ltd.|
|v. Azta Shipping Company and 2,350 Bags of|
|Costa Rican Coffee, 1975 A.M.C. 1339 (U.S.|
|District Ct., Eastern District of La., May 22,|
|Todok v. Union Bank of Harvard, 281 U.S. 449,||V:83 (n. 245)|
|50 S. Ct. 363 (1930)|
|Court of Justice of European Communities|
|Boussac Saint-Freres SA v. Brigitte Gerstenmeier,||VI:38|
|Case 22/80  33 C.M.L.R. 202|
|British Beef Company Ltd. v. International Board||IV:71 (n. 183)|
|for Agricultural Produce, Case 146/77  3|
|British Beef Co. Ltd. v. The Intervention Board for||III:61 (n. 205)|
|Agricultural Produce, The Times (London), June|
|20, 1978, p. 7;  2 C.M.L.R. 83|
|Butter-und Eier-Zentrale Nordmark eG v.||VI:69|
|Hauptzollumt Hamburg-Jonas, Case 38/79 |
|2 C.M.L.R. 753|
|Compagnie Cargill v. Office National||III:61 (n. 203)|
|Interprofessional des Céréales (ONIC), Case 27/77|
| E.C.R. 1535|
|Comptoir National Technique Agricole (CNTA) S.A.||II:86 (n. 28)|
|v. E.C. Commission, Case 74/74 |
|1 C.M.L.R. 171|
|FabrizioGiliei v. Commission of the European||II:7 (nn. 25-28)|
|Communities. Case 28/74  E.C.R. 463|
|Firma Gebrüder Dietz v. Commission of the||IV:71 (n. 182)|
|European Communities, Case 126/76 |
|Firma Johann Lührs v. Hauptzollamt||IV:17 (n. 43)|
|Hamburg-Jonas, Case 78/77  E.C.R. 169|
|Fratelli Zerbone S.N.C. v. Amministrazione delle||IV:70 (n. 180), 71,|
|Finanze dello Stato, Case 94/77  E.C.R. 99.||84 (nn. 225, 228)|
|Hans-Markus Stöking v. Hauptzollamt||V:70 (n. 199), 71|
|Hamburg-Jonas (preliminary ruling requested by|
|the Finanzgericht Hamburg), Case 138/78 |
|IRCA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato,||II:87 (n. 28)|
|Case 7/76  E.CR. 1213|
|Merkur-Aussenhandels-GmbH v. Commission of the||I:2 (fn. 4)|
|European Communities, Case 43/72  E.CR.|
|Re Monetary Compensatory Amounts for Durum||V:68 (n. 197),|
|Wheat: Italy v. E.C. Commission, Case 12/78:||73 (n. 198)|
|Tomadini SNC v. Amministrazione delle Finanze|
|dello Stato (Unione Industriale Pastai Iialiani|
|intervening). Case 84/78  2 C.M.L.R. 573|
|N.G.J. Schouten B.V.v. Hoofdproduktschup voor||IV:72 (n.185),|
|Akkerbouwprodukten, Case 35/78  E.C.R.||73 (n. 186)|
|Regina v. Brian Albert Johnson and Others [19781 1||III:47 (n. 163)|
|Regina v. Ernest George Thompson, Case 7/78||IV:86 (n. 238)|
| E.C.R. 2247|
|S.A. Roquette Frères v. French State-Administration||III:61 (nn. 204, 205)|
|des Douanes  E.C.R. 1835|
|Sociéte anonyme générale Sucrière v. Commissionof||III:57 (n. 198)|
|the European Communities. Joined Cases 41, 43,|
|and 44/73  E.C.R. 445|
|Société pour l’Exportation des Sucres SA v.||IV:74 (n. 187)|
|Commission of the European Communities, Case|
|132/77  1 C.M.L.R. 309|
|Allocation||IV: 1-5, 103-104|
|Application of gold units of account:||VI:83-89; V:81-83;|
|SDR solution||IV: 91-92; III:35-40;|
|II:55-58; I:17-22, 30-33|
|Borrowing by Fund||VI:5-6; V:103 (n. 3);|
|IV: 15-16; III:7-10;|
|Constant purchasing power||VI: 10-11. 97-99;|
|V:37-40; IV: 18-20|
|Gold units of account in combination with SDR||VI:4, 6, 97-99; V:42-43|
|Indexation||VI: 10-11, 97-99|
|Interest||V: 14-20, 96-97; IV: 14-15|
|Unification of baskets||V:14-16|
|Weighting of basket||V: 18-20|
|New Uses||IV:5-12, 105. 112|
|Forward operations||IV:11, 111|
|Settlement of financial obligations||IV:5-7, 105|
|Swaps||IV: 10-11, 109-110|
|Transfers as security||IV:9-10, 108-109|
|Nonmembers of Fund||VI:4, 6, 8-10, 43;|
|V:41-42; IV:30, 35-36;|
|Obligations of third parties||IV: 12-13, 116 (n. 29)|
|Prescribed holders||VI: 1-2; V:21-26|
|List||VI: 1-2; V:25|
|Terms and conditions||V:23-25, 98-99|
|Treaties: general aspects||V:40-43|
|Units of account||VI:1, 2-8, 42, 66, 73-74,|
|112-14; I:43, 45-66|
|Commercial transactions||VI:7-8; III:30|
|Fixed and flexible||IV:34; II:46-48, 66-67|
|Maintenance of value||VI:2-3; III:15-19, 77-78|
|Private use||IV:39-43; III:28-30;|
|Regional organizations||IV:22-23, 27-29, 37;|
|43-44, 46-49; I:57-58|
|Treaties and organizations||VI:3-7; V:26-34;|
|Valuation||V:l-14, 104-105 (n.15);|
|Concurrent methods||V:28-29; IV: 15-17;|
|Consequences of change||III:7-11|
|Exchange rates for calculating value||V:12-14|
|First basket||II:71-72; I:9-15, 84-87|
|First revised basket||V:2; III:2-7, 75-77|
|Majorities for decisions||V: 10-12; III:9-10; I:53-55|
|Second revised basket||V:l-8, 93-96, 98|
|Adaptation of monetary clauses|
|(see Amendment of monetary provisions)|
|Amendment of monetary provisions||VI:71-74; V:48-52;|
|Allocation of exchange risks||VI:64-67|
|Anti-dumping||VI: 34-35, 41|
|Averaging exchange rates||V:66-67|
|Choice of exchange rates||VI:43, 45-46, 48, 49-57,|
|58-60, 65, 67-71; V:47-48|
|Consultation||VI:13, 14, 16, 17,|
|115 (n. 58); 116 (n. 165),|
|117 (n. 71)|
|Continuing effects of par values||IV:84-85|
|Currency adjustment factors||VI:71-74|
|Currencies of payment||V:52-57|
|Discriminatory currency arrangements||VI:12, 26, 28, 35-36;|
|Treaty of Rome||VI:38-40|
|Equal value||VI:66, 128 (n. 226)|
|European Monetary System||VI: 12, 41, 47-48;|
|ECU||VI:60-62, 69; IV:48-50,|
|Exchange arrangements and intervention||IV:50-55, 127 (n. 140)|
|Texts||IV:124-25 (n. 129)|
|Financial Accounting Standards Board||VI:62-63; V:60-61|
|Forward contracts||VI:24-25, 67-71|
|“Freely usable” currencies||VI:66; V:52-57|
|Frustration of contract||III:61-63; II:10-11|
|GATT||VI:23, 43-44, 50-51;|
|Hardship and other protective clauses||IV:64-67; II:7-14|
|Judgments in foreign currencies||VI:43-62, 65; V:61-65;|
|(Miliangos doctrine)||IV:76-81, 132 (n. 206):|
|Bankruptcy and liquidation||VI:51-54, 65, 67|
|Enforcement of foreign judgment||VI:49-50|
|Foreseeability of fluctuation||VI:46, 47-48. 56-57|
|Garnishment of debts||VI:45|
|114 (n. 181), 115-16|
|Judgments and Articles: exchange rates||VI:58-60|
|Judgments and Articles: restrictions||VI: 60-62|
|Law Commission, English||VI: 48, 109|
|Law Reform Commission, British Columbia||VI:55|
|Other jurisdictions||VI:49-57; IV:80-81|
|Maintenance of value||V:57-59; III:77-78; II:73|
|Measurement of changes in exchange rates||V:71-77, 100-101|
|Mitigation of damages||VI:67-71|
|Monetary compensatory amounts||VI:69-70; V:67-71;|
|Multiple currency practices||VI: 12, 17-35, 36-37, 58,|
|Consequences of unapproved practices||VI: 30-35|
|Jurisdictional issues||VI: 17-20|
|Relevance of provisions other than||VI:27|
|Responsibility of members||VI:20-22|
|Par values and central rates||VI:22-23, 36; III:53-60;|
|II:5-7; 1:25-27, 77-83|
|Protection against exchange risks:|
|by operation of law||IV:67-74|
|Restrictions||VI: 18-19, 36-37, 60-61,|
|117-18 (n. 81)|
|Restrictions on receipt of currency||VI:61-62|
|Second Amendment||VI:17-22; III:51-52;|
|Sharing exchange risks||IV:74-76|
|Surveillance over exchange rate policies||VI: 11-17, 139-46;|
|Role of Executive Director||VI:14-15|
|Role of Managing Director||VI: 13-14|
|Unenforceability under Article VIII,||VI:32-34, 60-62|
|Uniformity and symmetry||VI:115 (n. 53)|
|Units of account (other than SDR)||VI:41-43, 52, 65-67;|
|Use of Fund’s resources||VI:30-32|
|Validity of exchange rates||VI:34, 58-60|
|Versailles Communiqué||VI:16-17, 106-107|
|Variability of exchange rates, effects of||VI:40-75|
|World Bank Currency Pooling System||VI:65-66; IV:74-76|
|Application of gold units of account||VI:83-89; III.38-39|
|Avoidance of exchange for SDRs||V:79-81|
|Certificates||VI:76, 130-31 (n. 251)|
|Domestic official price||VI:78; III:40-41. 88-89|
|European Monetary System||IV:88, 94|
|Fund’s transactions||VI:79-80; II:50-51|
|Gold cover||VI:79; IV: 83|
|Gold units of account|
|(see Judicial application,|
|Group of Ten agreement||III:41-46|
|Joint Resolution (U.S.)||III:46-51; II:82-83;|
|Judicial application of gold units of account||VI:83-87; V:81-83;|
|Legislative application of gold units of account||VI:87-89; III:38-40|
|Official translation of gold units of account||IV:92-93; III:35-40;|
|88 (n. 128)|
|Restitution||VI:79, 80-81; II:50-51|
|IV: 100-102; III:71-73;|
|Revaluation profits||VI:77; V:84-85|
|Revived role||VI: 75-83; V:78-79;|
|117-118 (nn. 210-212)|
|Subsidies to producers||IV:89-90|
|Taxation||VI: 130-31 (n. 251)|
|U.S. Gold Commission||VF75-83|
|Validity of gold unit of account||II:61-63|
|National practices||VI:77, 79, 84; IV:89;|
|III:32-34, 86 (n. 98);|
Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its fifteenth session, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh Session. Supplement No. 17 (A/37/17), United Nations (New York, 1982), pp. 14-17.
The Conference of Plenipotentiaries may wish to insert a list of crileria to be taken into account by the Committee.
International Monetary Fund, Annual Report of the Executive Board for the Financial Year Ended April 30.1982 (Washington. 1982), pp. 128-32.
IMF Survey. Vol. 11 (June 21. 1982), p. 189.
Executive Board Decision No 6790-(81/43). March 20. 1981. Selected Decisions of the International Monetary Fund and Selected Documents. Ninth Issue (Washington, 1981). pp 225-27.
The Law Commission, Working Paper No.80. Private International Law [:]Foreign Money Liabilities (London, 1981), pp. 180-81.
IMF PAMPHLET SERIES
International Monetary Fund Pamphlet Series
(All pamphlets have been published in English, French, and Spanish, unless otherwise stated)
*1. Introduction to the Fund, by J. Keith Horsefield. First edition, 1964. Second edition, 1965. Second edition also in German.
*2. The International Monetary Fund: Its Form and Functions, by J. Marcus Fleming. 1964. In English only.
3. The International Monetary Fund and Private Business Transactions: Some Legal Effects of the Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1965.
4. The International Monetary Fund and International Law: An Introduction, by Joseph Gold. 1965.
*5. The Financial Structure of the Fund, by Rudolf Kroc. First edition, 1965. Second edition, 1967.
6. Maintenance of the Gold Value of the Fund’s Assets, by Joseph Gold. First edition, 1965. Second edition, 1971.
7. The Fund and Non-Member States: Some Legal Effects, by Joseph Gold. 1966.
8. The Cuban Insurance Cases and the Articles of the Fund, by Joseph Gold. 1966.
9. Balance of Payments: Its Meaning and Uses, by Pout Høst-Madsen. 1967.
*10. Balance of Payments Concepts and Definitions. First edition, 1968. Second edition, 1969.
11. Interpretation by the Fund, by Joseph Gold. 1968.
12. The Reform of the Fund, by Joseph Gold. 1969.
13. Special Drawing Rights, by Joseph Gold. First edition, 1969. Second edition, with subtitle CharacterandUse, 1970.
14. The Fund’s Concepts of Convertibility, by Joseph Gold. 1971.
15. Special Drawing Rights: The Role of Language, by Joseph Gold. 1971.
16. Some Reflections on the Nature of Special Drawing Rights, by J.J. Polak. 1971.
17. Operations and Transactions in SDRs: The First Basic Period, by Walter Habermeier.1973.
18. Valuation and Rate of Interest of the SDR, by J.J. Polak. 1974.
19. Floating Currencies, Gold, and SDRs: Some Recent Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1976. Also in German.
20. Voting Majorities in the Fund: Effects of Second Amendment of the Articles, by Joseph Gold. 1977.
21. International Capital Movements Under the Law of the International Monetary Fund, by Joseph Gold. 1977.
22. Floating Currencies, SDRs, and Gold: Further Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1977. Concluding section also in German.
23. Use, Conversion, and Exchange of Currency Under the Second Amendment of the Fund’s Articles, by Joseph Gold. 1978.
24. The Rise in Protectionism, by Trade and Payments Division. 1978.
25. The Second Amendment of the Fund’s Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1978.
26. SDRs, Gold, and Currencies: Third Survey of New Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1979. Concluding section also in German.
27. Financial Assistance by the International Monetary Fund: Law and Practice, by Joseph Gold. First edition, 1979. In English only. Second edition, 1980.
28. Thoughts on an International Monetary Fund Based Fully on the SDR, by J.J. Polak. 1979.
29. Macroeconomic Accounts: An Overview, by Poul Høst-Madsen. 1979.
30. Technical Assistance Services of the International Monetary Fund. 1979.
31. Conditionality, by Joseph Gold. 1979.
32. The Rule of Law in the International Monetary Fund, by Joseph Gold. 1980.
33. SDRs, Currencies, and Gold: Fourth Survey of New Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1980.
34. Compensatory Financing Facility, by Louis M. Goreux. 1980.
35. The Legal Character of the Fund’s Stand-By Arrangements and Why It Matters, by Joseph Gold. 1980.
36. SDRs, Currencies, and Gold: Fifth Survey of New Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1981.
37. The International Monetary Fund: Its Evolution, Organization, and Activities. First edition, 1981. Fourth edition, 1984.
38. Fund Conditionality: Evolution of Principles and Practices, by Manuel Guitián. 1981.
39. Order in International Finance, the Promotion of IMF Stand-By Arrangements, and the Drafting of Private Loan Agreements, by Joseph Gold. 1982.
40. SDRs, Currencies, and Gold: Sixth Survey of New Legal Developments, by Joseph Gold. 1983. In English. French and Spanish in preparation.
41. The General Arrangements to Borrow, by Michael Ainley. 1984. In English. French and Spanish in preparation.
42. The International Monetary Fund: Its Financial Organization and Activities, by Anand G. Chandavarkar. 1984. In English. French and Spanish in preparation.
43. The Technical Assistance and Training Services of the International Monetary Fund. In English. French and Spanish in preparation.
*Out of print. Photographic or microfilm copies of all English editions, including numbers that are out of print, may be purchased direct from University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, U.S.A., or, for those living outside the Western Hemisphere, from University Microfilms Limited, 30/32 Mortimer St., London, W1N 7RA, England.
Copies (unless out of print) may be requested from:
External Relations Department, Attention: Publications
International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431, U.S.A.
Telephone number: 202 623-7430
Cable address: Interfund