Odious debts: A moral account

Autores
Dimitriu, Cristian
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
In this article I discuss the conditions under which sovereign debts are not morally binding for a state. Following an old legal doctrine, I call non-binding debts ‘odious’. I proceed as follows. First, I argue that alternative accounts on the morality of debts are unsatisfactory. The problem these accounts have are that they do not clearly identify the philosophical issues that underlie the notion of odious debts, or that they fail to specify what exactly the immorality of odious debts consists in. Second, I defend the view that a debt is odious when two conditions are satisfied: (i) borrowed funds were used by public officials for purposes for which they were not authorised (ii) lenders knew, or should have known, about possible unauthorised uses of those funds. If these two conditions are both satisfied, debts should not be considered debts of the state, but rather personal debts of rulers. Third, I discuss the feasibility of my approach by exploring how it would work in the current world. Finally, I discuss the implications of my account and a possible reply to it. One of the remarkable upshots of this analysis is that it will show that the problem of odious debts is widespread and pervasive.
Fil: Dimitriu, Cristian. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
Corruption
Global Justice
Human Rights
International Law
Odious Debts
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/59277

id CONICETDig_72b19eeda0ce03ef25573ab0efc2a64f
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/59277
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Odious debts: A moral accountDimitriu, CristianCorruptionGlobal JusticeHuman RightsInternational LawOdious Debtshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6In this article I discuss the conditions under which sovereign debts are not morally binding for a state. Following an old legal doctrine, I call non-binding debts ‘odious’. I proceed as follows. First, I argue that alternative accounts on the morality of debts are unsatisfactory. The problem these accounts have are that they do not clearly identify the philosophical issues that underlie the notion of odious debts, or that they fail to specify what exactly the immorality of odious debts consists in. Second, I defend the view that a debt is odious when two conditions are satisfied: (i) borrowed funds were used by public officials for purposes for which they were not authorised (ii) lenders knew, or should have known, about possible unauthorised uses of those funds. If these two conditions are both satisfied, debts should not be considered debts of the state, but rather personal debts of rulers. Third, I discuss the feasibility of my approach by exploring how it would work in the current world. Finally, I discuss the implications of my account and a possible reply to it. One of the remarkable upshots of this analysis is that it will show that the problem of odious debts is widespread and pervasive.Fil: Dimitriu, Cristian. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaTaylor & Francis2015-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/59277Dimitriu, Cristian; Odious debts: A moral account; Taylor & Francis; Jurisprudence; 6; 3; 9-2015; 470-4912040-3313CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/20403313.2015.1065646info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20403313.2015.1065646info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:44:07Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/59277instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:44:07.857CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Odious debts: A moral account
title Odious debts: A moral account
spellingShingle Odious debts: A moral account
Dimitriu, Cristian
Corruption
Global Justice
Human Rights
International Law
Odious Debts
title_short Odious debts: A moral account
title_full Odious debts: A moral account
title_fullStr Odious debts: A moral account
title_full_unstemmed Odious debts: A moral account
title_sort Odious debts: A moral account
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Dimitriu, Cristian
author Dimitriu, Cristian
author_facet Dimitriu, Cristian
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Corruption
Global Justice
Human Rights
International Law
Odious Debts
topic Corruption
Global Justice
Human Rights
International Law
Odious Debts
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv In this article I discuss the conditions under which sovereign debts are not morally binding for a state. Following an old legal doctrine, I call non-binding debts ‘odious’. I proceed as follows. First, I argue that alternative accounts on the morality of debts are unsatisfactory. The problem these accounts have are that they do not clearly identify the philosophical issues that underlie the notion of odious debts, or that they fail to specify what exactly the immorality of odious debts consists in. Second, I defend the view that a debt is odious when two conditions are satisfied: (i) borrowed funds were used by public officials for purposes for which they were not authorised (ii) lenders knew, or should have known, about possible unauthorised uses of those funds. If these two conditions are both satisfied, debts should not be considered debts of the state, but rather personal debts of rulers. Third, I discuss the feasibility of my approach by exploring how it would work in the current world. Finally, I discuss the implications of my account and a possible reply to it. One of the remarkable upshots of this analysis is that it will show that the problem of odious debts is widespread and pervasive.
Fil: Dimitriu, Cristian. University of Kansas; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description In this article I discuss the conditions under which sovereign debts are not morally binding for a state. Following an old legal doctrine, I call non-binding debts ‘odious’. I proceed as follows. First, I argue that alternative accounts on the morality of debts are unsatisfactory. The problem these accounts have are that they do not clearly identify the philosophical issues that underlie the notion of odious debts, or that they fail to specify what exactly the immorality of odious debts consists in. Second, I defend the view that a debt is odious when two conditions are satisfied: (i) borrowed funds were used by public officials for purposes for which they were not authorised (ii) lenders knew, or should have known, about possible unauthorised uses of those funds. If these two conditions are both satisfied, debts should not be considered debts of the state, but rather personal debts of rulers. Third, I discuss the feasibility of my approach by exploring how it would work in the current world. Finally, I discuss the implications of my account and a possible reply to it. One of the remarkable upshots of this analysis is that it will show that the problem of odious debts is widespread and pervasive.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-09
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/59277
Dimitriu, Cristian; Odious debts: A moral account; Taylor & Francis; Jurisprudence; 6; 3; 9-2015; 470-491
2040-3313
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/59277
identifier_str_mv Dimitriu, Cristian; Odious debts: A moral account; Taylor & Francis; Jurisprudence; 6; 3; 9-2015; 470-491
2040-3313
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/20403313.2015.1065646
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20403313.2015.1065646
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842268647122272256
score 13.13397