SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 7

Currency Manipulations in Internatonal Economic Law: The Applicability of WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

Uluslararası Ekonomi Hukukunda Kur Manipülasyonları: DTÖ Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Antlaşmasının (GATT) Uygulanabilirliği

Mustafa Göker(T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı)0000-0002-7853-5887
Pages
150–183
Publication Date
2025-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It also addresses the role of the IMF in a dispute settlement process under the WTO.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Currency manipulations, which aim at gaining a competitive advantage in trade through undervalued exchange rates, is prohibited by the IMF Treaty.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Both the IMF's weak sanction tools and the direct distortive effects of currency manipulations on trade raise the question of whether WTO rules and its sanction mechanisms can be applied as a solution against them.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It also addresses the role of the IMF in a dispute settlement process under the WTO.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kur Manipülasyonları · Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Antlaşması (GATT) · Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ)

Abstract

Currency manipulations, which aim at gaining a competitive advantage in trade through undervalued exchange rates, is prohibited by the IMF Treaty. Both the IMF's weak sanction tools and the direct distortive effects of currency manipulations on trade raise the question of whether WTO rules and its sanction mechanisms can be applied as a solution against them. This study investigates whether the relevant rules of GATT can be applied to currency manipulations and whether complaints can be made in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism which is a more advanced and sanctions-backed tool. In this regard, it argues that there are sufficient provisions to enable it to initiate violation complaints under Article XV and non-violation complaints under Article XXIII. It also addresses the role of the IMF in a dispute settlement process under the WTO.

Özet

Eksik değerlenmiş kurlar vasıtasıyla ticarette rekabet avantajı elde etmeye yönelik kur manipülasyonları IMF Antlaşması tarafından yasaklanmıştır. Gerek IMF’nin zayıf yaptırım araçları gerekse de kur manipülasyonlarının ticaret üzerindeki doğrudan bozucu etkileri nedeniyle, onlara karşı DTÖ kuralları ve yaptırım mekanizmalarının uygulanıp uygulanamayacağı sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. Bu çalışma, GATT’ın ilgili kurallarının kur manipülasyonlarına uygulanıp uygulanamayacağını ve bu kapsamda, daha gelişmiş ve yaptırımlarla desteklenmiş bir araç olarak DTÖ anlaşmazlıkların halli mekanizmasında şikâyete konu edilip edilemeyeceğini araştırmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Madde XV kapsamında ihlal şikâyetleri ile Madde XXIII kapsamında ihlalsiz şikâyetler başlatma imkânı verecek yeterli hüküm bulunduğunu savunmaktadır. Ayrıca, DTÖ bünyesinde yürütülecek bir uyuşmazlık çözüm sürecinde IMF’nin rolünü ele almaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Göker, M. (2025). Currency Manipulations in Internatonal Economic Law: The Applicability of WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 7, 150–183. https://doi.org/10.59399/cuhad.1669541

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. BACCHUS, J. (2010). "Don’t Push the WTO Beyond Its Limits", The Wall Street Journal, 25 March 2010.
  2. BECKINGTON, J. S., AMON, M. R. (2011). Competitive Currency Depreciation: The Need for a More Effective International Legal Regime. Journal of International Business and Law, 10, 209-268.
  3. BERGSTEN, C. F. (2007). ‘The Global Imbalances and the US Economy’, Testimony before the Subcommittees on Trade, Ways and Means Committee: Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, Energy and Commerce Committee; and Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives, 9 May. (Testimony).
  4. BERGSTEN, C. F. (2014). Addressing Currency Manipulation Through Trade Agreements. Policy Brief Number PB 14-2, Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics. (Policy Brief 14-2).
  5. BERGSTEN, C. F., GAGNON, J. E. (2017). Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States. Washington. (A New Strategy).
  6. BERGSTEN, C. F., GAGNON, J. E. (2012). Currency Manipulation, the US Economy, and the Global Economic Order. Policy Brief 12-25. Washington: Peterson Institute for Inter-national Economics. (Policy Brief 12-5).
  7. BLUSTEIN, P. (2012). A Flop and a Debacle: Inside the IMF’s Global Rebalancing Acts. CIGI Papers No. 4 (www.cigionline.org/publications/flop-and-debacle-inside-imfs-global-rebalancing-acts E.T. 05.02.2025).
  8. CAMERON, J., GRAY, K. R. (2001). Principles of Intenational Law in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(2), 248-298.
  9. COLLIER, J., LOWE, W. (1999). The Settlement of Disputes in International Law Institutions and Procedures, New York.
  10. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (2018). Debates over Exchange Rates: Overview and Issues for Congress, CRS Report Prepared for Members and Committess of Congress R43242 (Version 18), Updated June 22, 2018. (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43242 E.T. 30.03.2025).
  11. DE LIMA-CAMPOS, A., GIL, J. A. G. (2012). “A Case for Misaligned Currencies as Countervailable Subsidies”. UNCTAD XIII Pre-Conference Event Policy Dialogue: Redefining the Role of the Government in Tomorrow’s International Trade 26 – 27 March 2012 Room XVI, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
  12. GAGNON, J. (2013). The Elephant Hiding in the Room: Currency Intervention and Trade Imbalances. Working Paper 13-2. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics. (Working Paper 13-2).
  13. GATT COMMITTEE ON BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS RESTRICTIONS (1981). Consultations with Italy, Background Paper by the Secretariat, BOP/W/51, 25 September 1981 (https://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/90410133.pdf E.T. 30.03.2025).
  14. GATT ANALYTICAL INDEX, Article XV Exchange Arrangements (https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art15_e.pdf E.T. 12.01.2025).
  15. GATT PANEL, European Community – Tariff Treatment on Imports of Citrus Products From Certain Countries in the Mediterranean Region (EC – Citrus), Unadopted GATT Panel Report L/5776 (United States v. European Community), Circulated on 7 February 1985. (EC – Citrus).
  16. GATT PANEL, Japanese Restrictions on Imports of Thrown Silk Yarn (Japan- Silk Yarn), GATT Panel Report L/4637 - 25S/107 (United States v. Japan), Adopted on 17 May 1978. (Japan – Silk Yarn).
  17. GATT PANEL, The Australian Subsidy on Ammonium Sulphate (Australia – Ammonium Sulphate), GATT Panel Report GATT/CP.4/39, BISD II/188 (Chile v. Australia), Adopted by the Contracting Parties on 3 April 1950. (Australia – Ammonium Sulphate).
  18. GOLDSTEIN, M., LARDY, N. R. (2008). China’s Exchange Rate Policy: An Overview of Some Key Issues (M. GOLDSTEIN, N. R. LARDY, Düzenleyenler), Washington.
  19. HELLENIER, E. (2017). The Evolution of the International Monetary and Financial System (J. RAVENHILL, Düzenleyen), New York.
  20. HUFBAUER, G., SCHOTT, J. (2012). Will the WTO Enjoy a Bright Future, Policy Brief 12-11, Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 2012.
  21. HUFBAUER, G., WONG, Y. STETH, K. (2006). US – China Trade Disputes: Rising Tide, Rising Stakes. Policy Analyses in International Economics 78. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  22. IMF (1960). Board of Executive Directors Decision No. 1034-(60/27) of 1 June 1960 (https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781451972511/ch010.xml E.T. 30.03.2025). (Article VIII).
  23. IMF (2006). Article IV of the Fund’s Articles of Agreement: An Overview of the Legal Framework (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2016/12/31/Article-IV-of-the-Fund-s-Articles-of-Agreement-An-Overview-of-the-Legal-Framework-PP3883 adresinde erişilebilir. E.T. 30.03.2025). (Article IV).
  24. IMF (2023). 2022 Update of the External Balance Assessment Methodology, IMF Working Paper, WP/23/47, 2023 March, 4. (Working Paper WP/23/47).
  25. LOWENFELD, A. F. (2010). The International Monetary System: A Look Back Over Seven Decades, Journal of International Economic Law, 13(3), 575-595.
  26. MATTOO, A., SUBRAMANIAN, A. (2008). Currency Undervaluation and Sovereign Wealth Funds: A New Role for the World Trade Organization. The World Bank Development Research Group Trade Team, Policy Research Working Paper No.4668, July 2008.
  27. MIRANDA, J. (2010). Currency Undervaluation as a Violation of GATT Article XV(4). (S. EVENETT, Düzenleyen), Vox Ebooks, VoxEU.orgPublication.
  28. MITCHELL, A., SHEARGOLD, E. (2009). GATT Art. XV: Exchange Arrangements. Georgetown Business, Economics & Regulatory Law Research Paper No. 1507253, November 2009.
  29. PAUWELYN, J. (2001). The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go? The American Journal of International Law, 95(3), 535-578. (How Far).
  30. PAUWELYN, J. (2003). Conflict of Norms in Public International Law How WTO Relates to Other Rules of International Law, Cambridge. (Conflict of Norms).
  31. PETERSMANN, E-U. (1997). The GATT / WTO Dispute Settlement System, London.
  32. SIEGEL, D. (2002). Legal Aspects of the IMF/WTO Relationship, American Journal of International Law, 96(3), 561-599.
  33. STAIGER, R. W., SYKES, A. O. (2010). Currency Manipulation and World Trade. World Trade Review, 9(4), 583-627.
  34. STEINER, J., WOODS, L. (1998). Textbook on EC Law, London.
  35. THORSTENSEN, V., MARCAL, E., FERRAZ, L. (2012). Impacts of Exchange Rates on International Trade Policy Instruments: The Case of Tariffs. Journal of World Trade, 46(3), 597-634.
  36. THORSTENSEN, V., MÜLLER, C., RAMOS, D. (2015). Exchange Rate Measures: Who Judges The Issue – IMF or WTO? Journal of International Economic Law, 18(1), 117-136.
  37. WTO APPELLATE BODY, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items (Argentina – Textiles and Apparel), WTO Appellate Body Report WT/DS56/AB/R (United States v. Argentina), Adopted on 22 April 1998. (Argentina – Textiles and Apparel).
  38. WTO APPELLATE BODY, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment (EC – Computer Equipment), WTO Appellate Body Report WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS68/AB/R, (United States v. European Communities), Adopted on 22 June 1998. (EC – Computer Equipment).
  39. WTO APPELLATE BODY, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products (India – Patents (US)), WTO Appellate Body Report WT/DS50/AB/R (United States v. India), Adopted on 16 January 1998. (India – Patents (US)).
  40. WTO APPELLATE BODY, India – Quantitative Restrctions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (India – Quantitative Restrctions), WTO Applellate Report WT/DS90/AB/R (United States v. India), Adopted on 22 September 1999. (India – Quantitative Restrictions).
  41. WTO APPELLATE BODY, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India (US – Wool Shirts and Blouses), WTO Appellate Body Report WT/DS33/AB/R (India v. United States), Adopted on 23 May 1997. (US – Wool Shirts and Blouses).
  42. WTO PANEL, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes (Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes), WTO Panel Report WT/DS302/R (Hpnduras v. Dominican Republic), Adopted on 19 May 2005. (Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes).
  43. WTO PANEL, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment (EC – Computer Equipment), WTO Panel Report WT/DS62/R, WT/DS67/R, WT/DS68/R (United States v. European Communities), Adopted on 22 June 1998. (EC – Computer Equipment).
  44. WTO PANEL, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products (India – Patents (US)), WTO Panel Report WT/DS50/R (United States v. India), Adopted on 16 January 1998. (India – Patents (US)).
  45. WTO PANEL, India – Quantitative Restrctions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (India – Quantitative Restrctions), WTO Panel Report WT/DS90/R (United States v. India), Adopted on 22 September 1999. (India – Quantitative Restrictions).
  46. WTO PANEL, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper (Japan – Film), WTO Panel Report WT/DS44/R (United States v. Japan), Adopted on 22 April 1998. (Japan – Film).
  47. WTO PANEL, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement (Korea – Procurement), WTO Panel Report WT/DS163/R (United States v. Republic of Korea), Adopted 19 June 2000. (Korea – Procurement).
  48. WTO PANEL, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (US – Section 211 Appropriations Act), WTO Panel Report WT/DS176/R (European Communities v. United States), Adopted on 1 February 200. (US – Section 211 Appropriations Act).
  49. YU, C. (2019). Currency Manipulation and WTO Laws: Should the Anti-Dumping Mechanism Be Entirely Dumped? Journal of World Trade and Investment, 20, 891-915.
  50. ZIMMERMANN, C. D. (2011). Exchange Rate Misalignment and International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 105(3), 423-476.