The concept has antecedents dating back to the 1800s and has received support from diverse fields such as
economics,
philosophy,
political science,
history, and
law. The concept of odious debt was formalized in a 1927 treatise by
Alexander Nahum Sack, a
Russian émigré legal theorist. It was based on two 19th-century precedents—
Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by
Emperor Maximilian, and the denial by the
United States of
Cuban liability for debts incurred by the
Spanish colonial regime. Sack wrote: When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the state's interests, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently, it falls with the regime's demise. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfill one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilized for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation that has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler. Sack theorized that such debts are not enforceable when (1) the lender should have known that (2) the debt was incurred without the consent and (3) without benefit to the populace. There are many examples of similar debt repudiation. Chief Justice
William Howard Taft, acting as an
arbiter, used the doctrine in 1923 to find that
Costa Rica did not have to pay the
United Kingdom debts incurred by the
Federico Tinoco Granados regime. Despite such rulings, Mitu Gulati argues that odious debt is not part of
international law because "[n]o national or international tribunal has ever cited Odious Debt as grounds for invalidating a sovereign obligation." == Reception ==