The doctrine of odious debt in international law : a restatement

Full description
Bibliographic Details
Published:Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2016, © 2016
Persons: King, Jeff <<[VerfasserIn]>> -
Format: Book / Printed Book
Language:English
Edition:First published
Series:Cambridge studies in international and comparative law ; 125
Physical description:xvii, 222 Seiten : Illustrationen
ISBN:9781107128019
9781107567320
Classification - More hits on the same topic:VR: XV Dd = Völkerrecht: Staatsschulden. Staatsbankrott.:
LEADER 03648nam 2200337 ub4500
001 VR000982483
003 VRH01000000000000000963995
008 t s2016 r ||| eng
007 tu|||||||||||||||||||||
020 |a 978-1-107-12801-9  |c hbk. : £69.99 
020 |a 978-1-107-56732-0  |c pbk 
020 |a 1107128013 
020 |a 1107567327 
090 |a VR XV Dd 104 
100 1 |a King, Jeff <<[VerfasserIn]>> 
245 0 4 |a The doctrine of odious debt in international law  |b a restatement  |c by Jeff King 
250 |a First published 
260 |a Cambridge  |b Cambridge University Press  |c [2016]  |c © 2016, 2016 
300 |a xvii, 222 Seiten : Illustrationen 
520 |a "There has been a considerable amount of recent writing in civil society, legal academia, among commercial lawyers, and in UN agencies and the World Bank about the doctrine of odious debt. The surge in interest arose after the fall of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2003, and the claims by senior members of US President George W Bush's administration that Iraq's debt might be regarded as odious. The core idea of the doctrine as traditionally presented is that some sovereign debt claims are not binding or enforceable on account of the creditor's awareness of the fact that the proceeds of the loan would be used to oppress the population of the debtor state, or would be used for personal enrichment rather than public purposes. As this article will show, there has also been a substantial degree of skepticism about the legal status of the doctrine. The precedents are regarded as meager. Courts and tribunals have avoided ruling on its existence. Provisions on odious debt were deliberately omitted in the one relevant treaty on state succession to public debts. And the picture has been complicated by the existence of a widely diverging range of understandings of the doctrine, and especially of the putative requirement that public debts be for public purposes"-- 
520 |a "There has been a considerable amount of recent writing in civil society, legal academia, among commercial lawyers, and in UN agencies and the World Bank about the doctrine of odious debt. The surge in interest arose after the fall of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2003, and the claims by senior members of US President George W Bush's administration that Iraq's debt might be regarded as odious. The core idea of the doctrine as traditionally presented is that some sovereign debt claims are not binding or enforceable on account of the creditor's awareness of the fact that the proceeds of the loan would be used to oppress the population of the debtor state, or would be used for personal enrichment rather than public purposes. As this article will show, there has also been a substantial degree of skepticism about the legal status of the doctrine. The precedents are regarded as meager. Courts and tribunals have avoided ruling on its existence. Provisions on odious debt were deliberately omitted in the one relevant treaty on state succession to public debts. And the picture has been complicated by the existence of a widely diverging range of understandings of the doctrine, and especially of the putative requirement that public debts be for public purposes"-- 
041 0 7 |a eng  |2 ISO 639-2 
993 |a 1607 
490 0 |a Cambridge studies in international and comparative law  |v 125 
830 0 |a VR000183591 
084 |a VR: XV Dd 
998 |a VR: XV Dd 
998 |a Staatsschulden. Staatsbankrott. 
998 |a VR: XV Dd 
852 |c VR: XV Dd: 104  |m BOOK 
999 |a VRH50  |b MPVRH  |c Institutsbibliothek  |d VR: XV Dd: 104  |e unavailable  |t Nicht verfügbar  |f 1  |g 1  |h N  |i 2  |j BIB  |k i