(January 17, 2007) This paper examines the way that the traditional notion of odious debt as a method of repudiating sovereign debt may undergo a conceptual revolution, as it changes focus from the illegitimacy of governments obtaining loans, to the illegitimacy of the systems through which such loans are made and enforced generally.
Odious, illegitimate, illegal or legal debts – What difference does it make for international Chapter 9 arbitration?
(January 1, 2007) Once upon a time, sovereign debts were just that — debts or the entitlement to be repaid fully, including interest. During the 1970s it was thought unnecessary to make any distinctions between debts, based on the assumption that sovereigns might possibly become illiquid, but could never become insolvent.
Odious debt, old and new: The legal intellectual history of an idea
(January 1, 2007) In a sense, all debts are odious; that is, to use dictionary definitions, “hateful; disgusting; offensive.”1 Yet insofar as international economic law today is concerned, only a certain few debts can be considered “odious debts” in order to contest and perhaps eventually to repudiate them.
The odious debt doctrine after Iraq
(January 1, 2007) The odious debt doctrine has experienced renewed popularity in the past few years; it has been heralded by academics, political commentators, economists, and politicians as a mechanism to alleviate burdens imposed by illegitimate rulers.