Skip to main content

Demystifying Alexander Nahum Sack and the doctrine of odious debt

Eric Tousaint’s study of the odious debt doctrine

by Eric Toussaint

Part 1

Rarely do people, whether detractors or defenders of the doctrine elaborated by Alexander Sack, take the time to understand the international lawyer’s framework of analysis or his political leanings. Alexander Sack was not a humanist seeking to preserve peoples or nations from the nefarious actions of heads of State or creditors ready, through fraudulent or even criminal means, to plunge the collectivity into what was in fact odious debt. His principal aim was not to bring ethics or morality to international finance. Sack merely wanted to protect creditors’ rights, but he had to mention the important exception to the sacrosanct rule that debt repayment must continue at all costs, i.e. that in certain circumstances creditors have to accept the cancellation of debt owed them, if that debt can be shown to be odious.

Though disparaged by powerful detractors and despite its author’s obvious political limitations, the doctrine of odious debt inspired a series of movements looking to Sack’s work for a means of combating illegitimate, illegal, odious or unsustainable debt.

The two criteria that Sack picked to determine the existence of odious debt that a nation may refuse to repay are both functional and justified. They are: absence of benefit for the population and the complicity of the creditors. Our aim is to go beyond Sack’s doctrine, retaining what is functional, eliminating what is unacceptable from the outset, while integrating elements devolving from social and democratic victories which have found their way into international law since the Second World War. The rule whereby States remain under obligation to repay debts after a change of regime favours creditors and reinforces the dominant international order by trying to prevent States (and peoples) from shaking off the burden of debt. This rule has often been questioned, both in theory, by numerous 19th-century jurists and in practice, by States resorting to unilateral debt repudiation.

The most frequently-quoted part of Sack’s book, the section on odious debt, is sometimes misinterpreted. It runs as follows: “If a despotic regime incurs a debt, not for the needs and in the interests of the State, but to reinforce its tyranny and to put down any resistance on the part of the people, then this debt is deemed odious for the population of the entire State. It is not an obligation of the nation: it is the debt of a regime, a personal debt of the power that incurred it. Consequently, it falls when the power falls.” (p. 157) “The reason why such ‘odious’ debts cannot be considered as incumbent on the State is that they do not fulfil one of the prerequisites of State debts, namely that State debts must be contracted, and the funds that they provide utilised, for the needs and in the interests of the State. The State is not liable for ‘odious’ debts incurred and utilised, with the knowledge of the creditors, for ends which are contrary to the nation’s interests, should that State succeed in ridding itself of the government that had incurred them.” (…) “The creditors have committed a hostile act with regard to the people; they cannot therefore expect a nation freed from a despotic power to take on the ‘odious’ debts, which are personal debts of that power.” (p. 158).

The present study aims to clarify Sack’s position, place the doctrine of odious debt in its original context and see how that doctrine should be developed. As we shall see, the despotic nature of the regime is not a sine qua non condition to determine the odious nature of a debt, that would justify its repudiation. There are two criteria to be met: a debt is odious if it has been incurred against the interests of the population and the creditors were aware of this at the time.

Alexander Nahum Sack (Moscow 1890 – New York 1955), a Russian lawyer who taught in Saint Petersburg then in Paris, is considered to be one of the founders of the doctrine of odious debt. The doctrine, based on a series of precedents in jurisprudence, has come in for a lot of debate. Often disparaged and widely avoided or ignored in university courses, the doctrine of odious debt has nevertheless been the topic of hundreds of articles and dozens of specialized books. The United Nations International Law Commission, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the UN independent expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, Ecuador’s Commission for the full audit of public debt set up in 2007 by President Rafael Correa, the Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt, now known as the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM) and the Greek Debt Truth Commission set up by the president of the Hellenic Parliament in 2015 have published documents, taken a stand and organized seminars on the topic, as debts whose legitimacy and validity may be questioned are constantly under discussion in the field of international relations.

There are also recent academic publications on the subject: Jeff King, The Doctrine of Odious Debt in International Law. A Restatement, University College London, 2016; Stephania Bonilla, Odious Debt: Law-and-Economics Perspectives, Gabler publishers, Wiesbaden, 2011; Michael Waibel, Sovereign Defaults before International Courts and Tribunals, University of Cambridge, 2013; Michael Waibel, Sovereign Defaults before International Courts and Tribunals, University of Cambridge, 2013. Odette Lienau, Rethinking Sovereign Debt: Politics, Reputation, and Legitimacy in Modern Finance, Harvard, 2014; Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Sabine Michalowski, “Ius Cogens, Transitional Justice and Other Trends of the Debate on Odious Debts: A Response to the World Bank Discussion Paper on Odious Debts” (2009-2010), Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 48.

It has now been 30 years since I began studying the question, publishing research and taking part in commissions to identify illegitimate, illegal, unsustainable or odious debt. I realized that the arguments developed by Alexander Nahum Sack are little known. Whether among his detractors or those who base their actions on the doctrine elaborated by Sack, people often have inadequate or biased knowledge of the international jurist’s analytical framework or his political leanings. It is very useful to delve further, beyond a few quotes and an over-simplified presentation of his work, as the struggle to combat odious debt may well gain in finesse and strength from such study.

Alexander Sack was not a humanist interested in protecting peoples or nations from the nefarious actions of Heads of State or creditors prepared to plunge the community into debt using fraudulent or even criminal means. His main aim was not to bring ethics or morality to the world of international finance. His aim was to reinforce the international order in place, by ensuring the continuity of debt repayments so that creditors could recover the money they had lent.

Sack touches on the question of odious debt in a work published in Paris in French in 1927. His choice of title is significant: it translates as The Effects of the Transformation of States on their Public Debt and other Financial Obligations: a Legal and Financial Treatise. Sack began by asking himself what would become of debts a State had contracted in the case of a revolution, resulting in a change of regime. Sack states clearly in the first paragraph of the preface, “the Russian revolution of March 1917 incited me to examine the effects of the political transformation of a State on its public debt”. Among the main events that affected him and led him to conduct a close study, figure writ large October 1917 (which he calls a “Bolshevik coup d’état”) and the repudiation of the Tsarist debts by the Bolshevik government in January 1918. He then gradually widened the field of his research to examine various cases of State succession and how obligations which tied the new State or new regime to creditors were affected.

Nicolas Politis, a Greek lawyer and statesman who wrote the introduction to Sack’s work, stresses the breadth of the research undertaken: “It is no exaggeration to say that Mr. Sack has completed the task he set himself with full honours. He has brought together a collection of documents of rare value. (…) He has closely tracked the long list of annexation treaties and debt regulation agreements ratified over the last 150 years and analysed their clauses one by one; he has investigated the legislative, administrative and judicial measures taken to implement them; he has looked up and classified the opinions of all authors to have written on the subject. Finally, he demonstrates, through the use he makes of all this material, an extraordinary grasp of the practical necessities of the law. Thus he explains, down to the last detail, the juridical nature of the succession of debts, borrowers’ obligations and lenders’ rights, the relations between successor States, how they divided debts between them and how they established their shares.” (trans. CADTM)

Not until the end of the published book do we find about fifteen pages, in chapter 4, on odious debt. The preceding 157 pages deal with the transfer of public debt in different situations: conquest (or annexation) of one State by another; the separation of one State from another; the effects of a change of regime resulting from a revolution, etc. I will deal with Sack’s position regarding odious debt later in this article.

Source and references:

http://www.cadtm.org/Demystifying-Alexander-Nahum-Sack

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Neoliberal fascists continue the purge of the real Left and give us a small taste of what will happen under a Biden presidency

globinfo freexchange At about the time we were writing the article The time has come for neoliberalism to expose its true nature as a kind of refined fascism , the neoliberal regime did everything it could to justify us.  As the liberal elites proceed with the establishment of an increasingly authoritarian system to protect neoliberal order, the purge of real Leftists from key positions should be expected and considered almost certain.   Latest victims of the purge are two important figures in politics and journalism: Jeremy Corbyn and Glenn Greenwald.    The level of neoliberal Blairite evilness in the Labour Party hit a new record. In an unprecedented move, the new leadership decided to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. In a fascistic manner, the Blairite faction wasted no time and took advantage of the EHRC report to do what it had in mind in the first place: get rid of the party's Leftist faction once and for all.   And all this, despite the fact that Corbyn repeatedly appeared to be

The time has come for neoliberalism to expose its true nature as a kind of refined fascism

globinfo freexchange In an interesting interview, Afshin Rattansi spoke with William Robinson, author of The Global Police State . They discussed how capitalism's crises have fuelled the rise of the global police state. The drastic inequality and poverty that has become a theme of modern capitalism which necessitates the global police state. Also, whether there is class warfare on the poor and the growing industry of militarism and oppression.   As Robinson points out: The global police state has been on full display in the United States in the uprising that took place in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. But the largest story here, of course, is the mega cities of the world. Not just the hot war zones such as in the middle east.     The mega cities of the world are now the theaters for this global police state. And it's where these inequalities are so incredibly acute. And so all of the panoply of what i'm referring to as global police state is unle

Liberal plutocrats win a critical battle with their Biden puppet in the capitalist civil war and Trump keeps helping them

globinfo freexchange The globalist faction of the US capital (primarily consisted by the liberal plutocracy ) had the chance to counterattack against the capitalists around Trump through Biden's recent victory, in the ongoing capitalist civil war .   Yet, despite the fact that Trump brought some serious trouble to the liberal capitalists, ironically, he came right on time to rescue them. He helped them escape from the dead end, after eight years of an utterly disappointing Obama administration.  At the time when the liberal capitalists ran out of tricks (and social movements were pushing for real change in the US), Trump came to their rescue. Suddenly, the Obama fraud was almost forgotten and all the progressives had to align with the liberal fraudsters in order to defeat the "creepy orange clown". After four years of anti-Trump liberal hysteria and a pandemic nightmare that also came right on time, the liberal capitalists managed to put another puppet in power. And they

Συνεχίζονται οι επιχειρήσεις προπαγάνδας και αποπροσανατολισμού της μιντιακής χούντας εν μέσω πανδημίας

του system failure   Είναι ξεκάθαρο, πλέον, ότι η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη έχει χάσει τον έλεγχο στο μέτωπο της καταπολέμησης της πανδημίας. Και το χειρότερο είναι ότι ο έλεγχος έχει χαθεί όχι τόσο λόγω ανικανότητας, αλλά περισσότερο λόγω αναλγησίας και ιδεολογικού φανατισμού που χαρακτηρίζει τα περισσότερα μέλη της. Είχαμε ήδη επισημάνει από τον Μάρτιο ότι οι κυβερνώντες παίζουν κρυφτούλι και δείχνουν απρόθυμοι να κάνουν τις απαραίτητες προσλήψεις για να ενισχύσουν τα δημόσια νοσοκομεία. Αλλά και τα γνωστά "παπαγαλάκια", εν μέσω τέτοιας υγειονομικής κρίσης, δεν σταματούν ούτε στιγμή να λοιδορούν με άφθονη προπαγάνδα το Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας.   Όπως είχαμε επίσης επισημάνει, είναι φανερό ότι η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη έχει ρίξει όλο το βάρος στα αυστηρά μέτρα περιορισμού, ώστε να μην αναγκαστεί να κάνει το αυτονόητο: να ενισχύσει αποφασιστικά τα δημόσια νοσοκομεία με ιατρικό προσωπικό και εξοπλισμό.    Την ίδια στιγμή, η μιντιακή χούντα, που στηρίζει με νύχια και με δόντια το κα

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party suspension is about crushing the Left

Keir Starmer’s baseless decision to suspend former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is a transparent attack on the Left. Labour members must fight it, or everything Corbyn stood for will depart with him.   by Ronan Burtenshaw   Yesterday, the EHRC report into Labour’s antisemitism controversy was released. Contrary to the doomsday predictions on both sides — that it would label the party institutionally antisemitic or personally indict Jeremy Corbyn and his team — it was a sober and earnest document that focused on procedural issues. By lunchtime, it seemed likely it would be broadly accepted across the Labour Party. The report found that Labour’s processes for handling antisemitism complaints were lacking. Its structures were too weak, they were subject to political pressures, under-resourced, and lacked proper guidance. Its staff had not had access to appropriate training. The most damning finding — of harassment — related to two cases where representatives of the party, former mayo

Confirmed: Biden never wanted the Green New Deal and now he has a perfect excuse to bury it

globinfo freexchange   In a revealing interview for the Greek radio-station Radio 98.4 , former Greek Minister of Finance and current DiEM25 leader, Yanis Varoufakis, spoke about the current situation in Greece under COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the result of the recent US general election.  The current Greek government ( one of the worst the last decades as it seems), receives a lot of negative criticism from the opposition and from the independent press in Greece, for the fact that it didn't take advantage of the first lock-down to reinforce Greece's public healthcare system.   It seems that during this second wave of the pandemic (and the second lock-down), the Greek government is losing control as the COVID-19 cases rise dramatically and the public healthcare system now operates close to its limits. Mitsotakis administration receives negative criticism for the fact it left the tourism sector open during the summer to protect specific private interests. Most importantly,

Η έξαρση της πανδημίας επισπεύδει την καταστροφή που φέρνει το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς

globinfo freexchange Φαίνεται, δυστυχώς, ότι για άλλη μια φορά είχαμε δίκιο, καθώς αυτή η επιεικώς απαράδεκτη κυβέρνηση κάνει ότι μπορεί για να μας επιβεβαιώσει.   Γνωρίζαμε ότι η φράξια των νεοφιλελεύθερων τζιχαντιστών του Μητσοτακικού καθεστώτος είχε ως κεντρική αποστολή να ξεπουλήσει τα πάντα και να ιδιωτικοποιήσει το Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας. Δεν μπορούσαμε όμως να φανταστούμε, ότι οι φανατικοί του Μητσοτάκη θα έφταναν σε τέτοιο σημείο, ώστε όχι μόνο να εμπαίζουν πολίτες, γιατρούς και νοσηλευτικό προσωπικό, αλλά και να βρίσκουν μιας πρώτης τάξεως ευκαιρία, με αφορμή την κρίση, να συρρικνώσουν, αντί να στελεχώσουν το ΕΣΥ!   Αυτά τα γράφαμε τον Μάρτιο και κατά τη διάρκεια του πρώτου κύματος της πανδημίας, όπου το νοσοκομείο Καστοριάς, μιας περιοχής που είχε πληγεί ιδιαίτερα και τότε από την πανδημία, δοκιμάστηκε σκληρά από την αναλγησία και απροθυμία των κυβερνώντων να το ενισχύσουν ουσιαστικά.   Όπως είχαμε αναφέρει, οι ανεκδιήγητοι του Μητσοτάκη, όχι μόνο αρνήθηκαν να ενισχύσου

Media responds with apathy, disappointment as US-backed coup Gov’t concedes defeat in Bolivia

Across the spectrum, corporate media has endorsed last year’s rightwing takeover of Bolivia, refusing to label it as a coup. Coverage of Sunday’s historical elections hasn’t been much better.   by Alan Macleod    Part 2 - Media disappointment at return of democracy Across the spectrum, corporate media endorsed the events of November, refusing to label them a coup. The New York Times editorial board claimed that the “ increasingly autocratic ” tyrant Morales had actually “ resigned, ” after “ protests ” over a “ highly fishy vote. ”  The Washington Post did the same. “ There can be little doubt who was responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales, ” their editorial board wrote, as they expressed their relief that Bolivia was finally in the hands of “ more responsible leaders ” like Añez, (who, at the time, was giving security forces orders to shoot her opponents in the streets).    Despite this, The Wall Street Journal ’s board decided the events of November constit

Why is the World going to Hell?

by Jonathan Cook   Part 5 - Our mental black boxes   The third chapter gets to the nub of the problem without indicating exactly what that nub is. That is because The Social Dilemma cannot properly draw from its already faulty premises the necessary conclusion to indict a system in which the Netflix corporation that funded the documentary and is televising it is so deeply embedded itself. For all its heart-on-its-sleeve anxieties about the “existential threat” we face as a species, The Social Dilemma is strangely quiet about what needs to change – aside from limiting our kids’ exposure to Youtube and Facebook. It is a deflating ending to the rollercoaster ride that preceded it. Here I want to backtrack a little. The film’s first chapter makes it sound as though social media’s rewiring of our brains to sell us advertising is something entirely new. The second chapter treats our society’s growing loss of empathy, and the rapid rise in an individualistic narcissism, as something entirely

Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ report exposes real ‘political interference’

Jonathan Cook dissects the investigation by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission into the U.K. Labour Party.  by Jonathan Cook Part 1 I recently published in Middle East Eye a detailed analysis of last week’s report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission into the question of whether the U.K. Labour Party had an especial anti-Semitism problem. (You can read a slightly fuller version of that article on my website.) In the piece, I reached two main conclusions. First, the commission’s headline verdict — though you would never know it from reading the media’s coverage — was that no case was found that Labour suffered from “ institutional anti-Semitism. ” That, however, was precisely the claim that had been made by groups like the Jewish Labour Movement, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Board of Deputies and prominent rabbis such as Ephraim Mirvis. Their claims were amplified by Jewish media outlets such as The Jewish Chronicle and individual journalists such as Jonatha