Search

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 347 II. Transformations of Digital Services and Taxation 352 A. Explaining the Impact of Tax Policy Changes 353 B. Mapping the Tax Policy Changes 357 [...], This article examines how various tax policy changes being announced, proposed, or implemented in various countries affect business models that run on digital platforms. These include digital services taxes (DST), international corporate tax, value-added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST) reforms towards taxing the income that arises out of cross border flow of user data or towards the income that arises out of the trade of digital goods and services. This research seeks to understand how the covid-19 pandemic affects cross-border digital services and how tax policy changes in different countries affect business operations and decisions made by companies to respond to such changes. The G7, the G20, and the OECD recently came to a proper conclusion while discussing potential issues arising from taxing the digital economy. The discussions yielded two proposals that aim to globally tax the digitalization of the economy and market--in the form of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project "Two-Pillar" solution agreed by 136 countries on October 8, 2021. This article explains and analyzes the relevance of these proposals and proposes certain changes in these tax policies to advise better, more coherent digital tax policy, which governments can apply to ensure that a fair tax regime is implemented more uniformly as compared to the status quo where countries are unilaterally implementing digital tax policies through changes in their domestic regulations. Keywords: Corporate Tax Reform; Digital Services Taxes (DST); Value Added Tax (VAT); Goods and Services Tax (GST); Reforms; Digital Goods and Services; Covid-19.

Table of Contents I.Introduction 240 II. Towards a Reset of Tariffs at the World Trade Organization? 243 A. What Would Be the Scope of the Reset? 244 B. Meaning and [...], In June 2020, the United States pushed for a "reset" of tariffs at the World Trade Organization (WTO). This move was heralded as necessary for the United States to level the uneven playing field caused by "high bound tariff rates. "Ordinarily, the United States perceives trade remedies as a defensive measure. However, in this context, the United States seems to be preemptively acting against any misapplied, anti-dumping duties that it may face. For this reason, a global reset of tariffs will likely find support. It can be counterproductive for the new US administration to pursue such a strategy. If realized, it could result in countries pursuing trade remedies such as anti-dumping duties, which could adversely affect US exporters. In the long term, this could cause a fundamental shift in US trade remedy politics. This Article will argue that citing "high bound tariff rates" to call for a reset of tariffs is unsound. A WTO member can legally impose bound rates, which represent maximum rates. The ground reality remains that most countries apply tariffs that are lower than their bound rates in line with their multilateral commitments. While examining the rationale for different tariff policies, this Article will show that a tariff reset will adversely affect both US interests and established multilateral systems.

I. INTRODUCTION II. MAPPING THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE GIG ECONOMY A. What Is a Gig Worker? Moving Toward a New Employment Classification for Workers in the Gig Economy [...], This Article breaks new ground by providing a conceptual framework to understand the law and economics of the gig economy (in particular, the "gig workers"), its impact on labor productivity and income distribution, and policy interventions that are required by the government and central bankers as technology-aided gig employment spreads across the globe. From a legal and regulatory perspective, the gig economy challenges both domestic and international employment frameworks related to labor law. From an economic perspective, the rise of the gig economy is likely to increase overall productivity. Increases in productivity arise from an increase in labor force participation and getting access to lower-salaried workers from across borders, leading to more specialization and standardization of work. At the same time, full-time employment in a gig type set-up may lead to lower income and economic vulnerability for workers in developed countries. Regulators will soon have to address the challenges associated with some workers getting displaced by technological disruption. There is a need to find ways to absorb these laborers through alternative employment, which may be achieved by governments working closely with businesses and training centers to impart necessary additional skills for the displaced workers. At the same time, for the spread of gig employments, there is a need to invest in ICT-related infrastructure, such as telecommunication and internet connection, particularly in emerging economies.

This article provides an interdisciplinary analysis of the World Trade Organization (hereinafter “WTO”) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (hereinafter “AFS”), framing it as a pivotal yet complex advance in global efforts to address overfishing. It integrates insights from international economics and international trade law to examine the agreement’s key provisions. These include the prohibition of subsidies that promote Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing, the targeting of overfished stocks, and the regulation of high seas fishing activities. The analysis further explores AFS’s commitment to transparency and accountability, underscored by the implementation of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and the inclusion of specific provisions for developing countries. Moreover, the article assesses the agreement’s potential to catalyze fisheries reform, its congruence with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and the essential role of continued cross-sector collaboration in safeguarding marine ecosystems and curtailing overfishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 550 II. COULD DIGITAL ASSETS QUALIFY AS "COVERED INVESTMENTS"? 553 A. Is There an Investment? 555 1. Investment Definitions 556 2. Economic Factors 561 B. [...], The digital era provides many opportunities, yet it also presents several unique challenges with regard to cybersecurity and the protection of digital assets. Cybercrime has changed the international legal landscape as nations, businesses, and legislators grapple with how to deal with this rapidly evolving, multifaceted problem. As there is no international mechanism for protection of foreign investors in this regard, some scholars are advocating for the use of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) as part of a "polycentric" approach to cyber peace. With an uptick in digital development and more development on the horizon, it will be important to establish what protections--if any--BITs can provide for these digital assets. This Article explores this issue by (1) addressing digital assets as covered investments and (2) examining three potential investment claims.

The Journal of World Investment & Trade (JWIT) is celebrating its 25th volume and emphasizes its role as a platform for diverse perspectives and innovative ideas in international investment and trade. The journal encourages interdisciplinary approaches and critical understanding of investment and trade law, while also promoting inclusivity and interdisciplinary dialogue. The text discusses the concept of 'domestication' in international trade and investment law, comparing it to unilateral economic law. It also highlights the evolving nature of international economic law, which now includes environmental and social concerns. JWIT aims to analyze and interpret these trends and explore topics such as international taxation, environmental and energy law, cybersecurity, digital currencies, and sustainable supply chains. The journal seeks to provide insights into pressing issues and engage with legal practitioners, academics, and policymakers to promote responsible economic growth and social justice. [Extracted from the article]

Domain names remain a critical component of the internet landscape despite the advent of new technologies and search engines. This alphanumeric sequence plays a crucial role in online branding, identity, and search engine optimization, serving as the real estate of the 21st century. The convergence of legal principles governing trademarks and domain names highlights the importance of establishing clear identities and avoiding confusion between the two. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides a reasonable resolution to conflicts between domain names and trademarks while inspiring legislators to refine the trademark system. This paper explores the interplay between trademark and domain name systems and highlights the lessons that each system can learn from the other. One of the significant lessons is the need for a cohesive and efficient intellectual property rights (IPR) system that generates synergistic benefits. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform the interplay between trademarks and domain name systems by automating domain name availability checks and improving dispute resolution processes. However, stakeholders must carefully consider the implications and benefits of incorporating AI language models into the legal landscape. This paper highlights the need for vigilance and adaptability in managing intellectual property rights in the digital era. As emerging technologies, such as blockchain and AI, continue to shape the domain name landscape, policymakers, regulators, and stakeholders must explore how domain name systems can adapt to these technologies to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in safeguarding intellectual property rights. The interplay between trademarks and domain names has the potential to foster significant growth and improvement for both systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]