3 ms·
Well I would argue that Argentina does set a precedent: a government decided to default on some of its debts, but some of its creditors (the so-called 'vulture
by Iv 10y ago
Well I would argue that Argentina does set a precedent: a government decided to default on some of its debts, but some of its creditors (the so-called 'vulture funds') attacked this decision in US court. The US court ruled in favor of the creditors and allowed the seizing of Argentina's assets in several banks.
A UN resolution vote to prevent those practices (and thus reaffirming the kind of sovereignty you describe) was voted by a huge majority but rejected by the US.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but USA was already rejecting the notion of sovereignty when it comes to debt defaults, I think it is logical to reject it too when it comes to terrorism.
- HillRat 10y agoGood points, though those cases hinged on the argument that Argentina had, in its bonds, expressly waived sovereign immunity and made New York the forum for any legal action. Even so, the 2nd Circuit ruled against attempts to seize Argentinian Central Bank assets, setting a reasonably high bar for future attempts at recovery. Personally, I'm with you -- I think the Argentina cases had somewhat delicate international ramifications (traditionally, the assumption has been that international investors take their chances, and that the market would punish any country that defaulted), but even so, JASTA really does upend international law in a new and troubling way.
- Iv 10y agoI am really against the notion that waiving sovereignty is something that elected leaders are allowed to do. It is too easy to design a deal that will benefit one leader but open the country for pillaging under its successor.