خلافة الدول في الديون المقيتة

Abstract EN

This study deals with the problem of (succession of states in odious debts).

States are subject to changes in their legal status, which affects their previous financial obligations.

this change may be one three-level first; include all elements of the state, which eliminate the legal personality of the predecessor state, and second is limited on a part of its territory without eliminating of its legal personality , And third be only in the political system without extending to its territorial sovereignty, since the 1983 Convention on Succession of Property, Archives, and Debt has limited the succession of debts to changes in the Territory, while a change of political system is necessary in cases of succession regardless of the means of change; in order to address the non-compliance of the new systems with the illegal debts of the previous governments, justice requires that the successor government should not be obliged to pay its predecessor's debts for war, personal debt and other odious debts, whether the change of the political system came as a result of revolution or otherwise.

In the debt’s succession, only the legitimate debts are transferred to the successor state, but the odious debts not bound by successor state, regardless of the creditor, because they have no fault in carrying them when changing their territory or their political system.

This study is concerned with the discussion of the practical practice of settling the odious debt that is the subject of succession, where the effect and means of settlement vary from one case to another due to different circumstances and how States parties deal with them, making it difficult to say that customary rules In the absence of an agreement, each case must be examined in accordance with its circumstances and circumstances in order In a way that is suitable with those conditions and circumstances.

The debts of States are abhorrent and therefore are not transferred to the successor State if there are financial obligations to the State established by the authoritarian government contrary to the rules of international law, held by the holders of public authority in the predecessor state for the achievement of special objectives or incompatible with the public good with the knowledge of the lenders , And despite the existence of a stable concept of non-succession of countries for the debts of the odious, but this is not achieved in all cases for political reasons, the Iraqi government has left some of the debts that are odious and explicitly and can not be interpreted, such as Saudi Arabia's debt to Iraq during the war with Iran, 41 billion $, Except a The Saudi side has not raised the issue of such debts explicitly so far for fear of being included in the concept of odious debt as a debt of war and then not pay them to them permanently, and the Iraqi side is also afraid of opening the case of that debt ; In anticipation of the inability to resolve in his favor as a result of the world's political developments that could affect the settlement of those debts in a fair manner.