Argentinean state bonds - defense of necessity in relationship between state and private debtors - customary international law and general principles of law

Rudolf and Hufken explore the case of Joined Case Nos. 2 BvM 1-5/03 & BvM 1-2/06, in which the Federal Constitutional Court interpreted the question as being restricted to a defense of necessity toward private creditors. It began by recognizing that the doctrine of necessity is inherent in natio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of international law 2007-10, Vol.101 (4), p.857
Main Authors: Rudolf, Beate, Hufken, Nina
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Court decisions
Debtors
Human rights
Immunities of foreign states
International law
Laws, regulations and rules
Necessity (International law)
Obligations
Responsibilities
State bonds
States
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Rudolf and Hufken explore the case of Joined Case Nos. 2 BvM 1-5/03 & BvM 1-2/06, in which the Federal Constitutional Court interpreted the question as being restricted to a defense of necessity toward private creditors. It began by recognizing that the doctrine of necessity is inherent in national legal orders as well as public international law. The Court considered Article 25 of the International Law Commission's (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility--according to which, necessity is a circumstance precluding wrongfulness--as reflecting customary international law because the ILC had built on prior decisions of international judiciary bodies and the opinion of publicists. Moreover, he says that as the present decision shows--if only by its own, mistaken result--placing greater emphasis on general principles of public international law.
ISSN:0002-9300
2161-7953