Comity and Sovereign Debt Litigation: A Bankruptcy Analogy

Maryland Journal of Int'l Law and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1986

55 Pages Posted: 12 Mar 2002  

Stephen M. Bainbridge

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Abstract

On repeated occasions in the post-war period, the cumulative effects of policy mistakes, recessions, inflation, and other economic problems have made it difficult for sovereign debtors to service their external debt. Unlike a domestic U.S. private debtor, who may resort to formal bankruptcy procedures in the event of insolvency, a defaulting sovereign debtor has no formal mechanism for triggering a restructuring of its debt.

In some cases, sovereign debtors have resorted to a moratorium on debt payments. This article argues that U.S. courts ought to give effect to such moratoria under the international law principle of comity. Using standard game theory methodology (the so-called "creditors dilemma" variant of the famous "prisoners dilemma"), the article argues that creditors of such debtors would agree in advance to give effect to such a moratorium provided it neither repudiated the sovereign's debts not gave preference to certain creditors. A legal test for granting comity to sovereign debt moratoria is therefore proposed.

JEL Classification: K20, K33

Suggested Citation

Bainbridge, Stephen M., Comity and Sovereign Debt Litigation: A Bankruptcy Analogy. Maryland Journal of Int'l Law and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1986. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=302009 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302009

Stephen Mark Bainbridge (Contact Author)

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )

385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-1599 (Phone)
310-825-6023 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.professorbainbridge.com

Paper statistics

Downloads
335
Rank
71,791
Abstract Views
4,358