Abstract
Several issues relating to odious debt and contemporary efforts to expand the odious debt doctrine to cover all debts of odious regimes are maddeningly complex, implicating difficult issues in areas ranging from the international law of state succession to the law of commercial paper--itself a source of biannual trauma for thousands of bar aspirants. However, the scope of the debate as it has been developed in the literature is too narrow and, therefore, the questions posed too simple. In particular, any analysis of odious debt must account for issues that inhere to transitions and transitional justice. Here, Gray make some of these connections and argue that any treatment of odious debts must be consistent with the broader programs of transitional justice in which they are situated.
Citation
David C. Gray,
Devilry, Complicity, and Greed: Transitional Justice and Odious Debt,
70 Law and Contemporary Problems
137-164
(Summer 2007)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol70/iss3/8