Download Combatting currency manipulation

7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
Combatting currency manipulation
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Introduction
While many people would picture currency manipulation - also known as currency intervention, or
foreign exchange market intervention - as an underground act committed by criminals, it is in fact a
tool that central banks of countries use for certain purposes, mainly revaluing their currency compared
to foreign currencies. Regardless of delinquent, currency manipulation is a serious matter endangering
the global economic balance, especially when several dominant economies are engaging in it at the
same time. Such a situation is called a currency war, an effort by governments trying to gain a trade
advantage over other countries by decreasing the exchange rates, thus devaluing their currency. The
result is that their exports become more competitive in foreign countries, and imports become more
expensive. This is the so-called beggar-thy-neighbour policy in which a country attempts to remedy its
economic problems by means that tend to worsen the economic situation in other countries.
It's no wonder that it is one of the main interests of the global community to stabilize the economic
system, since the economic situation of a country or a region is directly connected to the wealth of its
citizens. Governments and the UN have several possible ways to avoid scenarios which lead to an
insecure political situation and social strife, however the problem is far from being solved.
Regular effects of altering exchange rates via currency manipulation include increasing and decreasing
prices of goods in a country, something that the average citizens can experience too. But to understand
why this is the case, one has to understand the way market economy works. The price level is set based
on supply and demand. For example, the price rises, if a product is rarely supplied or if there is a
higher demand for it. The other way around a product gets low priced if the demand for it is lower, or
because it is offered in larger quantities. In time of an economic recession/depression, governments
sometimes boost the economy by selling the country’s goods for a competitive price on the
international market. So, the government wants to avoid a demand-pull inflation of their own
currency. In the world-wide currency market the same system sets the exchange rates, with the small
but essential fact that it is not the average citizens buying certain goods, but a government more
precisely the central reserve bank buying foreign exchanges. The price for which a government buys a
currency is set by the compared worth to other currencies.
Throughout the twentieth century, many major economic forces have intervened in the foreign
exchange market in order to devalue their currencies. In this case the key interest rate gets low, which
leads the investing capital movements away from emerging markets to the major powers. While this is
not the exact case today, currency manipulation still has an important effect on international trade,
since it provides certain countries with unfair advantages. This forces other, smaller economies to
engage in currency intervention as well, in order to remain competitive. On a long term, such
economic conflicts result in a depreciation spiral which can easily end up with a large economic crisis,
and certain countries implementing policies against free trade, such as tariff walls or investment
limitations. It is the task of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to protect and enhance worldwide
free trade, thus, among others, it is their responsibility to tackle the issue of currency manipulation.
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
Circumstances and reasons of manipulation:
Harry Dexter White, the U.S. representative to the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, once said “Given
the choice, every country prefers to have its currency undervalued rather than overvalued.” This
observation suggests that nearly all countries would implement policies aiming to fuel the depreciation
of their currency to some extent, if they had the possibility to do so. In today’s world it is easy to see
that this is often not the case, furthermore certain nations even strive to increase the value of their
currency. Even though currency manipulation is internationally deplored, and the possibility of it is
strongly limited by the IMF, there are still certain conditions that make it possible and beneficial for a
nation to engage in currency intervention.
In general, it can be stated that an unstable economic situation in a country, for example following an
international financial crisis, can lead to intervention in the foreign exchange market by the monetary
authorities of the specific country, in order to stabilize the value of their currency despite the
unpredictability of the currency market. Quickly changing exchange rates hurt a country’s economy, as
they prevent foreign investors from entering the domestic market, and investing in domestic financial
assets. It can also prevent domestic investors from investing in foreign assets, thus severely reducing
the country’s economic activity. While an extremely high rate of inflation is often the indicator of
financial instability, the unexpected and high-level appreciation of a currency can also have serious
negative effects on the economy. In that case, the financial authorities often aim to significantly
decrease the value of the currency. Interventions for stopping deflation are typically conducted in
countries with highly advanced and developed economies destabilized due to an unexpected crisis, but
such interventions can cause financial disadvantages for other nations. Another possible reason for
developed economies to manipulate the exchange rates is if the country’s national bank finds that the
market has misinterpreted certain economic signals, resulting in an unprovoked change of exchange
rates. In this case, authorities use currency intervention to stabilize exchange rates.
However, another possible purpose of currency manipulation is gaining unfair advantages in
international trade. Such exchange market interventions are often considered to be protectionist
economic policies, and are strongly deplored by several nations, and international organizations,
including the WTO. Currency manipulation with the aim of gaining trade advantages is usually
conducted by nations with heavily export-oriented economies. A lower exchange rate between the
exporting and the importing countries’ currencies benefits the exporters, as it makes their exports
cheaper and more competitive. While this might be beneficial for the importers in some cases, on the
long term it can alter the trade balance of countries to the manipulating country’s advantage. In the
case of large-scale manipulation this does not only devalue the manipulating country’s currency, but
also increases the value of the importing country’s currency, thus weakening their exports. Such
manipulation is usually done by the exporting country buying large amounts of a different monetary
unit (most commonly USD) in exchange for their own currency, which leads to certain exporting
countries having large foreign-exchange reserves. If a country’s exchange market intervention exceeds
a justifiable level, it significantly boosts their economic competitiveness, which is not only a
significant problem for importing countries, but also for other exporters. In radical cases, this can lead
to currency manipulation by further nations, since that is the only possible way for them to remain
competitive in the international market.
Overall, it can be stated that nowadays, most developed economies only use currency manipulation in
exceptional cases, and usually with the aim of stabilizing the market following some unforeseeable
events. There are a few exceptions to this, but in general currency manipulation is more associated
with emerging economies. One of the main reasons for this is that many researches suggest that smallscale exchange market intervention is not truly effective in permanently altering the exchange rates,
rather just has a temporary effect. Furthermore, currency manipulation would often cause more
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
problems to developed economies, than benefits, as it can undermine the stance of monetary policy.
Large-scale intervention is limited by certain international regulations, and it is only worth it for
certain export-oriented developing economies to violate these rules.
Types and methods
The widely known, general method of currency manipulation is the purchasing or selling of foreign
currency by a country’s monetary authority in exchange for their domestic currency. Methods aiming
to manipulate exchange rates on a large scale are indeed based on this, but there are other ways a
central bank can alter these rates too.
The monetary authority of a country can manipulate exchange rates without buying or selling foreign
currencies by increasing or decreasing the domestic supply of money. This method is called indirect
foreign exchange market intervention. One of its main benefits for countries is that it doesn’t
directly involve foreign currencies, and thus can not be strongly controlled or limited by international
organizations, such as the IMF or the WTO. By increasing the domestic money supply, a central bank
can achieve the devaluation of the currency, while with decreasing the supply, thus relatively
increasing the demand, the currency’s value will increase. While this kind of intervention can be
effective in certain cases, it has several drawbacks. One of them is that this method doesn’t have an
immediate effect, as it takes time for the market to react to the altered money supply which results in
the change of exchange rates. When a central bank decides to take such measures in order to ensure the
stability and competitiveness of their country they often need quick results. However, indirect
intervention usually takes several weeks for the changes of the exchange rate to become reality. The
other disadvantage of this method is that it is often ineffective by itself. Most of the times the central
bank also has to change the domestic interest rates for the adequate results. In usual cases, high interest
rates go with a low money supply. These are used to slow down inflation. On the other hand, low
interest rates with high money supply aim to support the growth of the economy. However, interest
rates are mainly used to ensure the stability of the domestic economy, and if the central bank wants to
achieve the altering of exchange rates, despite the natural passages of the market, they often have to
change interest rates in an otherwise inappropriate way.
In order to avoid such problems, governments often decide to use the most well-known and effective
method of currency manipulation: direct foreign exchange market intervention. There are two
possible transactions that authorities can use to alter exchange rates. The first is used when they wish
to devalue the domestic currency. By selling large amounts of the country’s own currency in exchange
for foreign currency, the supply of the manipulating country’s money increases on the international
market, while the supply of the bought foreign currency decreases. This results in a devaluation of the
currency of the manipulating country, while the foreign currency appreciates. If the central bank aims
to increase the value of the domestic currency, it can reverse the transaction described above. By
purchasing the currency, in exchange for foreign money, the demand for the manipulating country’s
currency will increase, and so will its value. On the other hand, the foreign money that they used for
the purchase will depreciate.
While in the case of direct intervention, the central bank doesn’t necessarily alter the domestic interest
rates, they will change due to the increased or decreased money supply. For example, when foreign
money is bought with the domestic currency, new money will enter the circulation, as the central bank
uses newly printed money to increase the supply. In this case, the central bank buys foreign assets with
the new money, instead of domestic ones, however, on a longer term this will eventually mean an
increased money supply in the manipulating country. The depreciation of the currency will result in a
lower rate of return for foreign investors, and this eventually leads to lower domestic interest rates.
Thus, on a longer term, an indirect result of direct foreign exchange intervention is a higher rate of
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
inflation. On the contrary, when a central bank uses currency manipulation to increase the value of the
currency, on a long term it will lead to a decreased inflation rate, through the same steps.
Since the abolishment of the Gold Standard and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, central
banks of many developed economies hold the right to print as much of their countries’ currencies, as
they find necessary. This technically means that the ability of a central bank to devalue its domestic
currency is virtually unlimited, since they can spend a supposedly infinite amount on foreign currency.
On the other hand, the level of appreciation that can be achieved through direct foreign exchange
market intervention is limited, since the central bank needs to have a certain amount of foreign
currency that they can trade in exchange for the domestic currency. These foreign assets held by a
central bank are called foreign exchange reserves, and the amount of these reserves determines how
much a country can increase the value of its currency through direct intervention.
There is another way to differentiate between specific kinds of currency manipulation. The indirect
effects of direct foreign exchange market intervention cause a huge dilemma for central banks,
institutions that are generally entrusted with ensuring the economic stability of a country. As explained
above, the change in a country’s money supply will not only alter the exchange rates, but also the
interest rates, which are important tools for central banks to control the economic growth of their
countries, meaning that they cannot afford to have interest rates increasing or decreasing against their
will, due to currency manipulation. That is why many manipulating authorities chose to use a method
which aims to tackle these problems called sterilized intervention. With this method, central banks can
supposedly alter the exchange rates without truly changing the money supply, thus not altering interest
rates. The exact method of sterilized intervention is the following: after selling a certain amount of
currency for foreign money, aiming to devalue the currency, the central bank also sells Treasury bonds
of a value equivalent to the sold currency on the domestic market, thus technically keeping the same
amount of their domestic money in the circulation, while still achieving the change of demands,
therefore altering the exchange rates. However, in practice this method often fails. While it may cause
some confusion on the market, which results in a temporary change in exchange rates, this effect will
not be lasting, since the money supply did not actually change.
Many researches prove that by itself, sterilized intervention is ineffective on the long term, but there
still are some reasons for monetary authorities to engage in such manipulations. First of all, a
temporary effect can be achieved, as mentioned above, especially if the selling of Treasury bonds takes
place a few days or weeks after the purchasing of foreign currency. Another possibility, which can lead
to a more lasting effect is if the monetary authority manages to, in some way, fool investors with these
transactions, so that their expectations regarding economic growth and the value of the currency
change. If the central bank does not publicly announce its policy, investors can not be certain whether
they are planning to sterilize the intervention, or not. If these investors are aware of a foreign exchange
market intervention, but do not know about the sterilization, their policies might result in an increased
economic activity, which will lead to a certain level of depreciation of the currency. These effects are,
however, not well predictable, and even if the central bank manages to fool the investors into
unprovoked activities, it will result in a significantly smaller level of deprecation of the currency than
non-sterilized intervention.
In conclusion, there is no method of currency manipulation that is beneficial for the country in all
ways. Indirect intervention does not have a large effect, and it can only be achieved through the central
bank altering the domestic interest rates in an inappropriate way, which obstructs the stable functioning
of the economy, and can cause an unforeseen change in the inflation rate. Non-sterilized, direct foreign
exchange market intervention is very effective, however it affects the interest rates, and the inflation
rates on the longer term, so that it may result in the opposite of what the monetary authority is wishing
to achieve. Sterilized direct foreign exchange intervention, on the other hand, eliminates the problem
of changing interest rates, but does not really alter the money supply, thus fails to truly manipulate the
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
exchange rates. It does have some minor, temporary effects, but those are not adequate results for
currency manipulating authorities. Due to these significant drawbacks, most developed and advanced
economies do not engage in currency manipulation, since it may hurt their economy more than
enhance it. On the other hand, developing and emerging economies might find it is worth the negative
side-effects, since economic stability is usually not as important for their authorities as for the
governments and central banks of developed countries.
History and modern examples
There have been many examples for currency manipulation throughout the history of mankind. While
historically, most countries either preferred to have a managed, or fixed exchange rate system, or to
allow the free flowing market to determine the exchange rates, certain economic crises, or other
unforeseen events could always result in an unorthodox reaction by authorities, such as intentionally
devaluing their currencies in order to strengthen their exports, and weaken other countries’ imports,
thus enhancing the domestic industry and reducing unemployment. While these can be seen as positive
effects, the large-scale devaluation of currency significantly increases the inflation rate, and thus
results in a price increase, especially for imported products. While the government might find this
beneficial for the country on a long term, the people of the country are usually dissatisfied with the
high prices. Due to this, large-scale currency devaluation has always been a controversial and
somewhat risky policy from a government’s viewpoint. However, there have been several events
throughout history, which resulted in situations when many strong and important economies have
decided to engage in currency manipulation, in order to boost their competitiveness. Such situations,
when several countries decide to intervene in the foreign exchange market in order to gain trade
advantages are called currency wars, or competitive devaluations.
Before the 20th century, there were no real examples of currency war. Several governments have been
devaluing their currencies since the medieval ages, by reducing their intrinsic value, however these
measures were not related to international trade, but were rather seen as a source of income for the
government. Furthermore, a gold standard was widely adopted by several important economies from
the mid 19th century, until the first World War. A gold standard means that the value and amount of a
country’s currency is based on a fixed amount of gold, usually the gold reserves of the country. This
standard being adopted by many countries meant that the exchange rates were quite stable, and
currency manipulation was neither possible, nor reasonable in that era. It wasn’t until after World War
I was over that economic tensions started to rise, and the circumstances of a currency war were given.
There is no universal agreement on when the first currency war started, however there were several
examples of currency manipulation in the 1920s, thus many economists and historians claim that the
“war” has started as early as 1921. While several countries engaged in currency intervention in the 20s,
the monetary conflict reached its peak with the 1930s’ Great Depression. Germany was the first
significant country to manipulate its currency after World War I in 1921. The German government
fueled a “hyperinflation” which would enhance the country’s competitiveness on a short term, but
would ultimately lead to the near destruction of their economy. After 1933 Germany started to back
out from world trade and only had significant links to Austria and Eastern Europe. In 1925, France
devalued the franc prior to reestablishing the gold standard in the country. That meant a significant
advantage for them, as countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom have returned to the
gold standard at a pre-war rate. This resulted in the UK abandoning the gold standard in 1931, and
regaining competitiveness with France. The U.S. refused to break with gold at that point, however they
were forced to revalue the dollar against gold, primarily to catch up to the exports of the UK. By the
mid 1930s, most of the leading economies have already emerged from the worst phrase of the Great
Depression except for France. Ultimately, the French government has decided to abandon the gold
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
standard and devalue the franc once again in 1936. Meanwhile, there was further devaluation in the
UK too, as a reaction to the United States’ 1933 interventions. Overall, the first currency war was
severely damaging to all of its parties as it resulted in large-scale trade disruption and wealth
destruction.
In 1944, the famous Bretton Woods Conference was held, with the participation of all 44 allied
nations. The aim of the conference was to avoid economic instability and crisis once World War II is
over. Besides institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a new monetary system,
later called the Bretton Woods system, was also established. Proposed by the United States, the system
was based on gold, and the U.S. dollar. The currencies of the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia,
and Japan were fixed to gold and to each other until 1971, when the United States ultimately broke
with the gold standard. While the Bretton Woods system was in power the exchange rates of the most
powerful economies of the world were almost completely stable, thus there was no option for currency
manipulation, and since there was a stable economic growth in the Western world during this era, the
members of the system had no intention of abandoning these standards until the late 1960s. Under the
Bretton Woods system, countries in need of loans or other financial assistance were aided by the IMF,
and currency devaluation was only allowed in special cases of trade deficit and high inflation, with
IMF permission. The decline of the Bretton Woods system was eventually caused by the end of the
U.S. economic hegemony in the 1960s. The “guns and butter” policy of the United States in the 1960s
meant that they have spent significant amounts on both the Vietnam war and domestic welfare
programs including reducing poverty. They have managed to maintain their international dominance
on the short term, however there were already signs of the collapse of the U.S.-led economic system.
The American inflation rate doubled in 1966, which started almost two decades of economic instability
in the United States.
Despite all this, the first significant devaluation since the Bretton Woods conference took place in the
United Kingdom in 1967. There has been a currency crisis in the UK since 1964 due to the
overwhelming amounts of foreign pound reserves, and while the pound was not as important in the
Bretton Woods system as the dollar, this was still a huge step towards abandoning the system. The
British devaluation started a series of events that eventually led to the collapse of Bretton Woods,
including the French government claiming that the biggest economies need to return to a traditional
gold standard, instead of having the currencies fixed to the dollar. By the late 60s it became obvious
that the fixed $35/ounce of gold price was too low, had to be artificially kept down, as a higher price
would have benefited gold producing countries such as South Africa and the USSR. All of these events
have led to a new economic policy by U.S. president Richard Nixon, implemented in 1971, ending the
convertibility of dollars to gold by foreign banks. This policy was developed without consultation with
the IMF, or members states of the Bretton Woods system, and was technically a de facto devaluation of
the dollar against gold. In addition to this, Nixon also announced a 10% tax on all imported products,
aiming to enhance the domestic industry. The policy had immediate effects, as the German mark, the
Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen have all been allowed to float freely against the dollar in 1971.
Former Bretton Woods countries have struggled through the 70s. The importance of the European
Economic Community increased, as Western European nations have found that they could only
achieve economic stability through a certain level of cooperation. The United States, on the other hand,
has suffered significant recessions, including the 4-year timespan between 1977 and 1981 when the
purchasing power of the dollar decreased by 50 percent. In parallel, the price of gold increased very
fast, and reached a staggering $612/per ounce by 1980. This era of the U.S. was marked by high
inflation rates, and stagnant growth, meaning that the dollar devaluations of the early 70s were
unsuccessful in boosting the economy. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that they’ve managed to emerge
from this situation, and reduce inflation to an acceptable level, while normalizing gold prices. The
Reagan administration introduced a policy of deregulation, low taxes, and a stronger dollar, which was
achieved by strong cooperation with the federal bank. Unlike other times in history, a stronger
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
currency in fact encouraged economic growth and activity in the U.S. during the 1980s.
Unemployment and a growing trade deficits remained problems however, as the strong dollar resulted
in many Americans buying foreign goods, German cars for example. At that time, countries such as
Germany and Japan operated with low-value currencies, and this seemed to have given them some
advantage against the U.S. Despite the economic growth, many Americans demanded the devaluation
of the dollar. This was not a simple task for the government, as the demand for dollars was very high at
the time, due to the strong economic growth. Therefore, large-scale foreign exchange market
intervention was necessary. The American government decided to negotiate with its trade partners
about the devaluation, and while the proposals were not beneficial for Japan and Western Europe, they
did eventually come to an agreement, mostly due to the parties of the discussions being heavily
dependant on both economic and political relations with the USA. However, just as in the early 70s,
American currency intervention was unsuccessful. A weaker dollar slowed down the economic growth,
while the unemployment rate did not significantly decrease, and the rising inflation rate caused new
problems in the country. In 1987, the value of the dollar was stabilized at a lower level, which marked
the end of the second currency war.
Following this period, there was relative stability in international monetary issues. While China, the
most significant currency manipulator of the 21st century has started to establish its dominant position
in world trade, supported by serious currency intervention, it was the 2007-2008 economic crisis that
triggered the next, and most recent currency conflict, which is still ongoing according to many
economists. In contrast to the previous currency wars, the main parties do not involve individual
European states and Japan this time, as the most important currencies are the American dollar, the
euro, and the Chinese yuan. Another significant difference is that the most developed countries don’t
use currency manipulation to gain trade advantages anymore. However, due to the destabilizing effects
of the global economic crisis, several European countries were forced to intervene in the foreign
exchange market. The most notable of these countries is Switzerland, which had to buy large amounts
of euros, and even fix the franc’s exchange rate to the euro for a short timespan to stop the rapid
appreciation of the franc. On the other hand, Russia experienced an unprecedented level of inflation
following the crisis, and has since aimed to raise the value of the ruble to a reasonable level again.
But the central conflict of the current currency war is the economic growth of Eastern Asia, most
importantly China, and the increasing trade deficit of several Western nations, most importantly the
USA. China is probably the most well-known currency manipulator today, as they have purchased
previously unseen amounts of dollars to devalue the yuan and raise Chinese exports to an extremely
competitive level. Meanwhile, American exports are getting weaker, and as China possesses the
biggest dollar reserves of the world, the USA is becoming the largest loser of 21st century currency
manipulation. Due to the extremely strong, and ever-growing economy of China, other Eastern Asian
economies, such as Malaysia, Hong Kong and Thailand are forced to engage in foreign exchange
market intervention. As several Eastern Asian countries are set to be among the biggest exporters of
the world, their currency manipulation is extremely alarming to the EU and the U.S. Other
manipulators include oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, besides
countries close to the euro zone, such as Denmark, however the current issue is strongly centered
around the USA-China financial conflict.
Measures against manipulation
International exchange rate and currency related issues are under the jurisdiction of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), while the main profile of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is regulating
and governing international trade. Both organizations approach the problem in their own way. The
WTO has rules against subsidies, however these fail to combat currency manipulation, therefore
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
further agreements and measures are necessary in order to eliminate this phenomenon from world trade
completely. The WTO has the capacity to adjudicate trade disputes, but to date it has done nothing to
suggest that trade issues linked to currency manipulation are within its zone of responsibility. With the
Trade Policy Review Body, the WTO has the legislation to act effectively, but a significant problem is
that the frequency of such investigations depends on share in the market. This seems to be a clever
regulation but does not publicize any grievance in emerging markets.
Fundamentally, the WTO is based on three main treaties and some smaller ones. The first one is the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) being the most extensive one it contains four main
ideas. The ban of public trade restriction (art. XI, GATT), the continuous decrease of rates of duty (art.
II, GATT), the most-favored-nation treatment (art. I, GATT) and an appropriate national treatment for
residents (art. III, GATT). The second treatment is the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) containing regulations which address the services in the bank-, insurance- and consulting
sector. These regulations aim for the international liberalization of the service sector. The third treaty is
called the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which internationally
protects patents, copyrights and design rights. Especially plagiarism illustrated that the economic
success of a country does not only depend on the monetary capital, but from the intellectual capital.
These three treatments build the substructure and the fundamental guidelines of the WTO, but do not
limit the room of manoeuvre of the organization.
The IMF can’t force a country to change its exchange rate policy, but the IMF Articles of Agreement
prohibit countries from manipulating their currency for gaining unfair trade advantage, however the
Fund has no capacity to enforce that prohibition. Still, the best current way of combating currency
intervention is raising the case in either the IMF or the WTO and discuss the issue on an international
level.
A first step to address this problem might be altering the IMF´s Articles of Agreement that would give
the IMF more power in forcing countries not sticking to the rules. A second step to be taken by using
the WTO´s power might be to define currency manipulation more precisely in order to make clear
differences between subsidy and manipulation. This would require a transparency of countries’
financial affairs national reserve banks. Such measures may raise awareness in the countries private
economic sectors about the nature and dangers of currency manipulation, which has to be punished on
an international level as well as on the national courts stages. Therefore, some negotiations as such as
the G20 meeting has to be continued and enlarged on sub-levels.
Sources










http://otm732.marginalq.com/documents/pb12-25.pdf
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/policy-and-theory-of-international-finance/s13-05-foreignexchange-interventions.html
https://www.mapi.net/blog/2015/05/currency-manipulation-historical-context
http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rickards_Currency_Wars.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_intervention
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/currency-manipulation-why-something-must-bedone/#f88495c31c8b
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welthandelsorganisation
http://congressionalresearch.com/RS22658/document.php?study=Currency+Manipulation+The+IMF+and
+WTO
http://www.capital.de/meinungen/ein-mittel-gegen-waehrungsmanipulationen-4154.html
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201223_e.pdf
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us at
[email protected] and also please send a position paper of about
300-500 words to the same address by March 17th.