重新审视主权破产

L. Buchheit, Anna Gelpern, G. Gulati, U. Panizza, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, Jeromin Zettelmeyer
{"title":"重新审视主权破产","authors":"L. Buchheit, Anna Gelpern, G. Gulati, U. Panizza, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, Jeromin Zettelmeyer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2354998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sovereign debt crises occur regularly and often violently. Yet there is no legally and politically recognized procedure for restructuring the debt of bankrupt sovereigns. Procedures of this type have been periodically debated, but so far been rejected, for two main reasons. First, countries have been reluctant to give up power to supranational rules or institutions, and creditors and debtors have felt that there were sufficient instruments for addressing debt crises at hoc. Second, fears that making debt easier to restructure would raise the costs and reduce the amounts of sovereign borrowing in many countries. This was perceived to be against the interests of both the providers of both creditors and major borrowers.This report argues that both the nature and our understanding of sovereign debt problems have changed, over the course of the last decade, in a direction that creates a much stronger case for an orderly sovereign bankruptcy regime today than ten years ago. Pre-crisis policy mistakes are now recognized to be a much more severe problem for borrowing countries than the costs or limited availability of private financing. Recent court rulings – particularly a recent U.S. ruling that gives \"holdout creditors\" that decline a restructuring offer the right to interfere with payments to the creditors that accept such an offer. This will complicate efforts to resolve future debt crises on an ad hoc basis. Finally, sovereign debt crises are no longer just a problem in emerging markets, but a core concern in advanced countries as well – particularly in the Euro area. If the Euro is to survive, this will require both better ways to resolve debt crises and stronger, market-based incentives that prevent debt problems from occurring in the first place.To address these problems, policy proposals are presented at two levels: for the Euro area, and globally. A Euro area sovereign debt restructuring regime could be developed by amending the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). This would both restrict the scope for lending to highly indebted countries without also restructuring their debts, and protect Euro area members receiving ESM financial assistance from legal action byholdout creditors. At the global level, a number of proposals are discussed, ranging from a coordinated introduction of \"aggregate collective action clauses\" that would allow a supermajority of bondholders across all bonds to amend bond payment terms to an amendment of the IMF articles that would limit the legal remedies of holdouts when a debt restructuring proposal has been accepted both by a majority of creditors and endorsed by the IMF.","PeriodicalId":275936,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Sovereign Bankruptcy\",\"authors\":\"L. Buchheit, Anna Gelpern, G. Gulati, U. Panizza, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, Jeromin Zettelmeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2354998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sovereign debt crises occur regularly and often violently. Yet there is no legally and politically recognized procedure for restructuring the debt of bankrupt sovereigns. Procedures of this type have been periodically debated, but so far been rejected, for two main reasons. First, countries have been reluctant to give up power to supranational rules or institutions, and creditors and debtors have felt that there were sufficient instruments for addressing debt crises at hoc. Second, fears that making debt easier to restructure would raise the costs and reduce the amounts of sovereign borrowing in many countries. This was perceived to be against the interests of both the providers of both creditors and major borrowers.This report argues that both the nature and our understanding of sovereign debt problems have changed, over the course of the last decade, in a direction that creates a much stronger case for an orderly sovereign bankruptcy regime today than ten years ago. Pre-crisis policy mistakes are now recognized to be a much more severe problem for borrowing countries than the costs or limited availability of private financing. Recent court rulings – particularly a recent U.S. ruling that gives \\\"holdout creditors\\\" that decline a restructuring offer the right to interfere with payments to the creditors that accept such an offer. This will complicate efforts to resolve future debt crises on an ad hoc basis. Finally, sovereign debt crises are no longer just a problem in emerging markets, but a core concern in advanced countries as well – particularly in the Euro area. If the Euro is to survive, this will require both better ways to resolve debt crises and stronger, market-based incentives that prevent debt problems from occurring in the first place.To address these problems, policy proposals are presented at two levels: for the Euro area, and globally. A Euro area sovereign debt restructuring regime could be developed by amending the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). This would both restrict the scope for lending to highly indebted countries without also restructuring their debts, and protect Euro area members receiving ESM financial assistance from legal action byholdout creditors. At the global level, a number of proposals are discussed, ranging from a coordinated introduction of \\\"aggregate collective action clauses\\\" that would allow a supermajority of bondholders across all bonds to amend bond payment terms to an amendment of the IMF articles that would limit the legal remedies of holdouts when a debt restructuring proposal has been accepted both by a majority of creditors and endorsed by the IMF.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275936,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"70\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

摘要

主权债务危机经常发生,而且往往是暴力的。然而,对于破产主权国家的债务重组,目前还没有得到法律和政治认可的程序。对这类程序进行了定期辩论,但迄今为止被拒绝,主要有两个原因。首先,各国一直不愿将权力交给超国家规则或机构,债权国和债务国都认为,有足够的工具来临时解决债务危机。其次,人们担心,让债务更容易重组将提高许多国家的成本,并减少主权借款的数量。这被认为违背了债权人和主要借款人的提供者的利益。本报告认为,在过去十年中,主权债务问题的性质和我们对主权债务问题的理解都发生了变化,朝着一个比十年前更有必要建立有序主权破产制度的方向发展。人们现在认识到,对借款国来说,危机前的政策错误是一个比成本或私人融资有限严重得多的问题。最近的法院裁决,特别是美国最近的一项裁决,给予拒绝重组提议的“顽固债权人”干预向接受重组提议的债权人支付款项的权利。这将使在临时基础上解决未来债务危机的努力复杂化。最后,主权债务危机不再仅仅是新兴市场的问题,也是发达国家——尤其是欧元区——的核心担忧。如果欧元要生存下去,就需要更好的方法来解决债务危机,也需要更强有力的、以市场为基础的激励措施,从一开始就防止债务问题的发生。为了解决这些问题,在两个层面提出了政策建议:针对欧元区和全球。欧元区主权债务重组机制可以通过修订《建立欧洲稳定机制条约》来建立。这既将限制向高负债国家提供贷款的范围,又不会同时重组这些国家的债务,还将保护接受ESM金融援助的欧元区成员国,使其免受拒不接受援助的债权人的法律诉讼。在全球层面,讨论了一系列建议,从协调引入“总集体行动条款”,允许所有债券的绝对多数债券持有人修改债券支付条款,到修改国际货币基金组织条款,限制在债务重组建议被大多数债权人接受并得到国际货币基金组织认可时,对顽固分子的法律补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting Sovereign Bankruptcy
Sovereign debt crises occur regularly and often violently. Yet there is no legally and politically recognized procedure for restructuring the debt of bankrupt sovereigns. Procedures of this type have been periodically debated, but so far been rejected, for two main reasons. First, countries have been reluctant to give up power to supranational rules or institutions, and creditors and debtors have felt that there were sufficient instruments for addressing debt crises at hoc. Second, fears that making debt easier to restructure would raise the costs and reduce the amounts of sovereign borrowing in many countries. This was perceived to be against the interests of both the providers of both creditors and major borrowers.This report argues that both the nature and our understanding of sovereign debt problems have changed, over the course of the last decade, in a direction that creates a much stronger case for an orderly sovereign bankruptcy regime today than ten years ago. Pre-crisis policy mistakes are now recognized to be a much more severe problem for borrowing countries than the costs or limited availability of private financing. Recent court rulings – particularly a recent U.S. ruling that gives "holdout creditors" that decline a restructuring offer the right to interfere with payments to the creditors that accept such an offer. This will complicate efforts to resolve future debt crises on an ad hoc basis. Finally, sovereign debt crises are no longer just a problem in emerging markets, but a core concern in advanced countries as well – particularly in the Euro area. If the Euro is to survive, this will require both better ways to resolve debt crises and stronger, market-based incentives that prevent debt problems from occurring in the first place.To address these problems, policy proposals are presented at two levels: for the Euro area, and globally. A Euro area sovereign debt restructuring regime could be developed by amending the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). This would both restrict the scope for lending to highly indebted countries without also restructuring their debts, and protect Euro area members receiving ESM financial assistance from legal action byholdout creditors. At the global level, a number of proposals are discussed, ranging from a coordinated introduction of "aggregate collective action clauses" that would allow a supermajority of bondholders across all bonds to amend bond payment terms to an amendment of the IMF articles that would limit the legal remedies of holdouts when a debt restructuring proposal has been accepted both by a majority of creditors and endorsed by the IMF.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信