"International law on sovereign defaults is underdeveloped because States have largely refrained from adjudicating disputes arising out of public debt. The looming new wave of sovereign defaults is likely to shift dispute resolution away from national courts to international tribunals and transform the current regime for restructuring sovereign debt. Michael Waibel assesses how international tribunals balance creditor claims and sovereign capacity to pay across time. The history of adjudicating sovereign defaults internationally over the last 150 years offers a rich repository of experience for future cases: US state defaults, quasi-receiverships in the Dominican Republic and Ottoman Empire, the Venezuela Preferential Case, the Soviet repudiation in 1917, the League of Nations, the World War Foreign Debt Commission, Germany's 30-year restructuring after 1918 and ICSID arbitration on Argentina's default in 2001. The remarkable continuity in international practice and jurisprudence suggests avenues for building durable institutions capable of resolving future sovereign defaults"--

International law on sovereign defaults is underdeveloped because States have largely refrained from adjudicating disputes arising out of public debt. The looming new wave of sovereign defaults is likely to shift dispute resolution away from national courts to international tribunals and transform the current regime for restructuring sovereign debt. Michael Waibel assesses how international tribunals balance creditor claims and sovereign capacity to pay across time. The history of adjudicating sovereign defaults internationally over the last 150 years offers a rich repository of experience for future cases: US state defaults, quasi-receiverships in the Dominican Republic and Ottoman Empire, the Venezuela Preferential Case, the Soviet repudiation in 1917, the League of Nations, the World War Foreign Debt Commission, Germany's 30-year restructuring after 1918 and ICSID arbitration on Argentina's default in 2001. The remarkable continuity in international practice and jurisprudence suggests avenues for building durable institutions capable of resolving future sovereign defaults"

International law on sovereign defaults is underdeveloped because States have largely refrained from adjudicating disputes arising out of public debt. The looming new wave of sovereign defaults is likely to shift dispute resolution away from national courts to international tribunals and transform the current regime for restructuring sovereign debt. Michael Waibel assesses how international tribunals balance creditor claims and sovereign capacity to pay across time. The history of adjudicating sovereign defaults internationally over the last 150 years offers a rich repository of experience for future cases: US state defaults, quasi-receiverships in the Dominican Republic and Ottoman Empire, the Venezuela Preferential Case, the Soviet repudiation in 1917, the League of Nations, the World War Foreign Debt Commission, Germany's 30-year restructuring after 1918 and ICSID arbitration on Argentina's default in 2001. The remarkable continuity in international practice and jurisprudence suggests avenues for building durable institutions capable of resolving future sovereign defaults.

For centuries, defaulting governments were immune from legal action by foreign creditors. This paper shows that this is no longer the case. Building a dataset covering four decades, we find that creditor lawsuits have become an increasingly common feature of sovereign debt markets. The legal developments have strengthened the hands of creditors and raised the cost of default for debtors. We show that legal disputes in the US and the UK disrupt government access to international capital markets, as foreign courts can impose a financial embargo on sovereigns. The findings are consistent with theoretical models with creditor sanctions and suggest that sovereign debt is becoming more enforceable. We discuss how the threat of litigation affects debt management, government willingness to pay, and the resolution of debt crises.

2 Dispute Settlement Under UNCLOS

Global banking and finance is a complex and specialized field with sector-specific investment forms, subject to distinctive legal and regulatory frameworks and unique types of political risk. This comprehensive guide to international investment protection in the finance and banking sector, written by acknowledged experts in the field of investor-State arbitration, provides the first in-depth discussion of how international investment law applies to investors and investments in the sector. Featuring expert guidance on the key legal protections for cross-border banking and finance investments, with complete and up-to-date coverage of investor-State cases, the analysis crystallizes a set of field-specific legal principles for the sector. In particular, the authors address the following practical aspects of investment protection in the banking and finance sector: how sector-specific forms of investment, such as loans and derivatives, impact the dispute resolution process; types of political risk that cross-border investments in the sector are likely to encounter; distinctive adverse sovereign measures that underlie disputes in the sector, including those from sovereign debt defaults and banking sector bailouts; specific treaty provisions, such as jurisdictional carve-outs and targeted exclusions; remedies available for violations of international investment protections; how monetary damages may be assessed for injury to banking and finance sector investments; the scope of financial services chapters included in certain free trade agreements; the protections available under domestic foreign investment laws; and alternative sources of protection such as political risk insurance and investment contracts. International disputes practitioners and academics, in-house counsel in the finance and banking industries, and arbitrators addressing banking and finance disputes will welcome this book for its practical guidance. With strategies for investors as well as for sovereign States to navigate the intricacies of the investment protection system, the authors’ comprehensive analysis will help ensure appropriate international protection for banking and finance sector investments, both when establishing investments and when resolving disputes. The book lays the groundwork for the future consolidation of international investment protection as a critical tool to manage the political risk confronting global banking and finance.