THE ADAPTIVE MANDATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE TIME OF COVID-19

Andrew Giddings & Clifford Blair

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted how drastically the world can change in a short time and the economic and financial systems with it. Change will continue at a breathtaking pace as new challenges emerge, from climate change to inclusive growth, along with new developments from innovations in financial technology to changing global power dynamics. These changes are inevitable regardless of how the COVID-19 pandemic evolves. The International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), the organization designed to oversee the functioning of the international monetary system and promote economic growth and financial stability, has experienced change since its creation. Indeed, contemporary events and global conditions have always affected the IMF. The IMF is designed to support its membership in times of need. This one of those times. The debate over the IMF’s role and mandate is not new either, but it is resurfacing with increased frequency in the context of “new realities.” Thus, it is worth looking in-depth at the legal rationales that support the IMF’s work in areas that are not traditionally considered to be part of its institutional mandate. This article will examine the development of the IMF’s role and adaptability through historical and unprecedented world changes. It identifies specific economic, geopolitical, environmental, and technological factors that present opportunities for the Fund to promote international monetary stability, including the COVID-19 crisis, social spending, gender equality issues, fintech, and climate change. These fractured realities have proven that a flexible and resilient IMF, in cooperation with its members, can help the world weather the storm of economic turmoil to create a more sustainable and resilient international economic system.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: FOUR REALMS OF DISCUSSION, RESEARCH, AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jootaek Lee

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) should be considered an active actor now, rather than later, because it would be too late to control after AI development passes the Singularity. Before any irreversible damages occur relating to Artificial General Intelligence (“AGI”), states should take measures to prevent any harmful effects to society. How can humans be protected in such a situation? This article inductively analyzes the human rights implications of AI/ AGI in four different realms, devised according to the level of AI development toward AGI as well as the human rights implications depending on the level of similarity of AI to humans.

LECTURE IN HUMAN RIGHTS: TAX, POLICY, GLOBAL ECONOMICS, LABOR, AND JUSTICE IN LIGHT OF COVID-19

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

International Tax Law has extensive ramifications on the wealth gap between wealthy developed nations and poor developing nations. This divide in prosperity has been made clear again in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing nations are currently ill-equipped to adapt to, and regulate, an equitable system of taxation on a domestic level. A further challenge is the difficulty of ensuring that foreign investors, especially multinational corporations, are able to comply with tax regulations. Developed nations such as the United States and members of the European Union must continue to work with developing nations to reduce tax evasion and increase revenues in a manner that is equitable for developing nations. The recent enactments of the Global Intangible Low-Tax Income (“GILTI”) and the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (“BEAT”) aim to ensure that multinational corporations comply with U.S. tax rates. GILTI and BEAT provide developing countries a framework for raising tax revenues from multinational companies. These tax innovations may help developing nations raise tax revenues, but they also restrict the ability of these nations to create their own tax schemes. If developing nations can coordinate a tax scheme that allows them to raise revenue from multinational corporations, they will ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and contribute to closing the global wealth gap.

REMOVING BARRIERS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION

John E. Bonine

A myriad of obstacles exists in all the avenues of environmental activism. The legal system, a fundamental avenue, is no exception. Countries around the world have instituted barriers in their judicial systems that are detrimental to equal justice. Defenders of the environment are obstructed from protecting it, while access to the courts is easier for those whose activities are keen on destroying it. This article focuses on the direct and indirect barriers that create this unequal access to justice. The first barrier discussed is standing to sue, which is a direct barrier. The others are financial barriers, which are indirect barriers that discourage plaintiffs from even filing a lawsuit due to the high costs of litigation and court fees. This article also discusses solutions to these barriers, such as creative litigation, explicit provisions in environmental treaties, and one-way attorney fees principles that could ease the path for citizens or NGOs to sue the government or those harming the environment.