INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND STAFF PAPERS CONTENTS THE FUND AGREEMENT IN THE COURTS Joseph Gold 315 EVOLUTION OF THE COLONIAL STERLING EXCHANGE STANDARD H. A. Shannon 334 MEASURING THE INFLATIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF A GOVERNMENT BUDGET William H. White 355 DEVALUATION VERSUS IMPORT RESTRICTION AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR IMPROVING FOREIGN TRADE BALANCE Sidney S.Alexander 379 PRICE ELASTICITIES OF DEMAND FOR INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES Barend A. de Vries 397 THE CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE SYSTEM OF HONDURAS Paul Vinelli 420 THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE AND THE MONETARY FUND Ervin Hexner 432 A NOTE ON PAYMENTS RELATIONS BETWEEN LATIN AMERICAN AND EPU COUNTRIES Fernando A. Vera 465 THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, 1946-1950: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Martin L. Loftus 471 VOL. I NO. 3 APRIL. 1951 ©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution STAFF PAPERS Edited by ALLAN G. B. FISHER and a Staff Committee Assisted by DOROTHY WESCOTT These papers are prepared by members of the staff of the Inter- national Monetary Fund. Three numbers constitute a volume. Sub- scriptions may be entered with any current number at a rate of US$3.50 for three numbers or the approximately equivalent price in the cur- rencies of most countries. Single copies may be purchased at US$1.50. Subscriptions and orders should be sent to: The Secretary International Monetary Fund 1818 H Street, N. W. Washington 25, D. C. From the Foreword to the first issue: "Among the responsibilities of the International Monetary Fund, as set forth in the Articles of Agreement, is the obligation to 'act as a center for the collection and exchange of information on monetary and financial problems,' and thereby to facilitate 'the preparation of studies designed to assist members in developing policies which further the purposes of the Fund.' The publications of the Fund are one way in which this responsibility is discharged. "Through the publication of Staff Papers, the Fund is making available some of the work of members of its staff. The Fund be- lieves that these papers will be found helpful by Government officials, by professional economists, and by others concerned with monetary and financial problems. Much of what is now presented is quite pro- visional. On some international monetary problems, final and defini- tive views are scarcely to be expected in the near future, and several alternative, or even conflicting, approaches may profitably be ex- plored. The views presented in these papers are not, therefore, to be interpreted as necessarily indicating the position of the Executive Board or of the officials of the Fund." GTJTT Managing Director The authors of the papers in this issue have received considerable assistance from their colleagues on the staff of the Fund. This general statement of indebtedness may be accepted in place of a detailed list of acknowledgments. ©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND STAFF PAPERS ©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution Vol. I APRIL 1951 No. 3 This page intentionally left blank ©International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution The Fund Agreement in the Courts Joseph Gold * nnHE GOVERNMENTS of forty-nine countries have now accepted JL 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 pro- tection, suzerainty, or authority and all territories in respect of which they exercise a mandate."1 On signing the Agreement, each govern- ment 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 The Articles of Agreement include a series of undertakings by mem- bers with respect to their monetary conduct and relations. It is obvious from even a first reading of the Articles that many of these under- takings must have an impact on the rights and obligations of private persons. The courts of various countries have already decided cases in which the Fund Agreement or domestic legislation connected with it has been relied on as having some bearing on the issues. It is fair to say that so far the approach to the Fund Agreement, by both litigants and courts, has been somewhat tentative. This is not surprising in view of the novelty of the Agreement as an attempt to coordinate international monetary affairs. Although it is reasonable to expect that as time goes on the approach will become more confident, it may be useful at this stage to note the first steps which have been taken by the courts. This article is intended, therefore, to describe what the courts have said or done in cases already reported in which some aspect of the Fund Agreement has been regarded as involved in the issues before the courts. It is thus not intended to be a critique of those cases. The cases considered may be grouped into two classes. The first deals with par values and rates of exchange and, incidentally, the price of gold; the second with the international recognition of exchange control regulations. * Mr. Gold, Assistant General Counsel, is a graduate of the Universities of London and Harvard, and was formerly a Lecturer in Law in the University of London and a member of the British Merchant Shipping Mission, Washington, D.C. He is the author of articles in British, American, and Canadian law journals. 1 Article XX, Section 2(g). ©International2 Article XX, Section Monetary 2(a). Fund. Not for Redistribution 315 316 IMF STAFF PAPERS Par Values and Bates of Exchange Conversion of foreign currency amounts; gold clauses One of the most significant features of the Fund Agreement is that fixed par values are established for the currencies of member countries. Article IV, Section l(a) requires the par value of each currency to be expressed in terms of gold as a common denominator or in terms of the U.S. dollar of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1944. Article XX, Section 4 describes the procedure by which par values are initially determined in agreement with the Fund, and Article IV, Sec- tion 5 deals with changes in par values. Sections 3 and 4(b) of Article IV oblige each member to take appropriate measures consistent with the Fund Agreement to ensure that exchange transactions taking place within its territories between its currency and the currencies of other members shall not differ from parity by more than the margins specified in Section 3 for particular types of exchange transactions.3 Although the concept of a fixed par value and of rates of exchange based on it is of fundamental importance under the Articles of Agree- ment, provision is also made for the retention, adaptation and introduc- tion of multiple currency practices in certain circumstances. Broadly speaking, members may maintain multiple currency practices which were in existence when the Fund Agreement took effect or when mem- bers joined the Fund, subject, however, to certain obligations to remove these practices. Any change in such practices or introduction of new ones requires the approval of the Fund.4 Courts are frequently called upon to decide at what rate of exchange one currency shall be translated into another. For example, in many countries the courts, in adjudicating claims to or based upon foreign currency, will award only domestic currency. This rule makes it neces- sary for the courts to select what they consider the appropriate rate of exchange for converting the foreign currency into domestic currency. Thus, they have had to decide not merely which rate shall be used where there are different rates for different types of exchange transac- tions (e.g., rates for spot exchange transactions and for transactions in coins and notes) or where there are multiple rates of exchange for a currency, but also whether to use official rates or unofficial rates. Refer- ence to two cases, one decided in England and the other in Canada, will illustrate the kind of problem which arises. In Marrache v. 3 However, "a member whose monetary authorities, for the settlement of inter- national transactions, in fact freely buy and sell gold" at a price within the margins from parity prescribed by the Fund is deemed to be fulfilling this obliga- tion. 4 As to multiple currency practices under the Fund Agreement, see the Fund's Annual Report,©International 1948, Appendi Monetaryx II, pp. 65-72 Fund.. Not for Redistribution THE FUND AGREEMENT IN THE COURTS 317 Ashton,5 A owed B a sum in Spanish pesetas under certain contractual arrangements governed by the law of Gibraltar, which was also the place of payment. B brought an action to recover the debt, and claimed conversion of it into sterling at the rate of 42.25 pesetas to the pound, which was the official rate of exchange in London under the Clearing Office (Spain) Order, 1936. However, in the course of the proceedings, B departed from this claim and maintained that the rate of 53 pesetas to the pound should apply. This was the official rate fixed in Spain at which tourists and laborers entering Spain from Gibraltar could exchange pounds for peseta notes. It was decided, however, that the appropriate rate of exchange was neither of these but was the rate at which peseta notes were traded in Gibraltar, even though the export and import of peseta notes were illegal under Spanish law. This was a rate of 132 pesetas to the pound.6 In Djamous v. Alepin,7 the defendant, a resident of Montreal, borrowed Syrian pounds in Syria and promised to repay the equivalent in U.S.