Legal Scholars Advance the Principle of Odious Debts

Contract, priority, and odious debt

(March 16, 2007)

Adam Feibelman
UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 970661 North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 727, 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
 
Abstract: This Article proposes that sovereign nations and their creditors adopt a contractual approach to the seemingly intractable problem of odious debt. Odious debt is generally defined as an obligation incurred by a despotic or illegitimate leader that provides no value to the population of the sovereign.

In recent years, spurred primarily by the financial problems of post-Hussein Iraq, many writers and commentators have proposed doctrinal and institutional mechanisms that would provide odious debt relief. These proposals all face practical challenges, and they would likely involve significant risk of destabilizing financial markets. Under a contractual approach, a majority or supermajority of a sovereign’s creditors would have the power to identify odious obligations of the sovereign. The sovereign would then be obligated to repudiate these debts. Creditors should have good incentives to employ this arrangement discriminately. More than any other relevant actors, creditors will internalize the costs and benefits of odious debt relief. Even if the private benefits of contractual odious debt arrangements are modest, they might create significant positive externalities. If so, academics, official actors, and policy advocates should encourage sovereigns and their creditors to adopt such arrangements.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s