Odious, Illegitimate, Illegal, or Legal Debts: What Difference Does It Make for International Chapter 9 Debt Arbitration?

Investigates the concept of "illegitimate debt" in relation to odious versus legal debts to consider international debt arbitration based on Chapter 9 in the US bankruptcy code. A review of the international view of debt since the 1970s identifies the need for a clear definition of the ter...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law and contemporary problems 2007-10, Vol.70 (4), p.221-247
Main Author: Raffer, Kunibert
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arbitration
Bankruptcy
Commercial arbitration
Contracts
Creditor claims
Creditors
Debt
Debt reduction
Debt service
Debtors
Debts
Developing countries
External debt
External debt relief
External debts
Extinguishment of debts
IMF
Insolvency
International public law
International relations
Laws, regulations and rules
LDCs
Legitimacy
Loans
Municipal bankruptcy
National debt
Obligation
OECD
Public debt
Public management
Sovereign debt
Sovereignty
Sustainable development
United States
United States of America
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Investigates the concept of "illegitimate debt" in relation to odious versus legal debts to consider international debt arbitration based on Chapter 9 in the US bankruptcy code. A review of the international view of debt since the 1970s identifies the need for a clear definition of the term "illegitimate" as exemplified in the Norwegian 2006 cancellation of debt. Odious debts, creditor duties, legitimacy, & the obligation to pay are factors that distinguish legal from legitimate debts. It is concluded that the application of the author's sovereign insolvency model would advantage creditors & debtors in the abolishment of the unjustified de facto privileges of official creditors that make the crisis worse. References. Adapted from the source document.
ISSN:0023-9186
1945-2322