The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”) marked the most dramatic revision to the U.S. tax code in decades. Several TCJA provisions affected the U.S.’s international tax rules. However, none were more innovative than the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (“BEAT”). The BEAT combats base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”), strategies employed by multinational corporations (“MNCs”) that shift profit from high to low tax jurisdictions to minimize global tax liability. Countries have traditionally controlled BEPS by amending their tax rules to eliminate the availability of specific practices and by monitoring transactions between an MNC’s international affiliates (“cross-border transactions”) to ensure they were made at arm’s length. Innovatively, the BEAT combats BEPS by requiring MNCs to recalculate their taxable income entirely excluding deductions from certain cross-border transactions historically associated with BEPS. If tax liability on this modified taxable income is greater than an MNC’s regular tax liability, the MNC must pay the difference. The U.S. is unlikely to face repercussions for the reasons discussed above.
In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark accord signed by Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany). The JCPOA, a hallmark of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy agenda, imposed restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for Iran’s re-entry into the international economy. Perhaps the most important concession granted to the Iranians in the JCPOA was the lifting of U.S. secondary sanctions. These sanctions prevented Iran from trading with much of the world out of fear of U.S. retaliation. When given the opportunity to trade with Iran or the U.S. almost any company would choose the U.S., which is the world’s largest economy. As a result, the lifting of sanctions provided a lifeline for the Iranian economy.
Two years into his presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump is on the brink of implementing one of his trade proposals from his 2016 campaign, a tariff on imported auto vehicles. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, the President has the authority to impose import restrictions on products following the submission of a report from the Department of Commerce affirming that the importation of those products “threaten[s] to impair national security.” The connection between national security and auto vehicle imports is tenuous.
While once relegated to law schools and boardrooms, information privacy law has moved to the forefront of public interest in recent years. Current events, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, have left data subjects reeling from the realization of how their personal data is being misused.
Military alliances and economic unions around the world are crumbling. International organizations are being tested and are splintering as evidenced by the United Kingdom’s impending, messy divorce from the European Union (“EU”), and the threats that US President Trump’s “America First” outlook and Turkish President Erdoğan’s increasingly autocratic actions pose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”). Nationalism is on the rise with many nationalists promising to shift sovereignty back to national capitals and away from multinational alliances if, and when, they take power. In fact, many have suggested that the EU can only be saved if it shifts the balance of power back to the capitals of its Member States and grants member states enhanced control over the EU’s decision-making processes. The argument that a military alliance or economic union will be more successful if the decision-making process is decentralized and more sovereignty is preserved by member states is becoming increasingly popular. An interesting international organization for a case study is the Arab League, one of the oldest regional organizations in existence.
As public and private functions moved onto the internet, academics and practitioners wondered how the law would determine data’s location for the purpose of jurisdiction. Some academics have proposed analogy to the high seas, outer space, Antarctica, and ungoverned spaces. Others, such as Jack Goldsmith, predicted and advocated for an application of extant understandings of sovereign territoriality to cyberspace. This view has prevailed for some time, but as cyberspace transactions and conflicts become increasingly complex, courts face difficult questions regarding data territoriality. Their rulings could have unintended consequences for state actors.
A collaboration between the Authentication in Art (“AiA”) foundation and the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (“NAI”), the Court of Arbitration for Art (“CAfA”) is located in The Hague and is the first tribunal of its kind. CAfA was established in 2018 to hear art law disputes, exclusively. These disputes include authenticity disputes, ownership and contract matters, and intellectual property/trademark cases. CAfA aims to provide recourse to parties with art disputes to settle without needing to resort to traditional national courts. The legal difficulties evidenced in these cases emphasize the need for an international, neutral venue that employs arbitrators experienced in dealing with this kind of case. These cases appear with greater frequency in today’s increasingly globalized art market, as well as with the rising trend in high-quality, difficult-to-detect art forgery.
Inside the World Court: A Conversation with H.E. Judge Joan E. Donoghue, International Court of JusticeBy: Subarkah Syafruddin
H.E. Judge Joan E. Donoghue has been a member of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, since 9 September 2010. Prior to her ICJ appointment, H.E. Judge Joan E. Donoghue was Principal Deputy Legal Adviser in the...
The Summit between President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is planned to take place on April 27, 2018, amidst voices of optimism as well as skepticism.
In March and April of 2018 the United States and China announced proposed tariffs specifically targeted to the importation of the other countries’ products. Although these reciprocal tariffs could signal an impending trade war, some analysts counter that they are in fact the result of a hard-bargaining tactic by President Trump primarily motivated by long-brewing concerns of Chinese intellectual property theft of U.S. technology.