Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Direito GV |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115 |
Resumo: | Sentences against sovereign States are difficult to enforce in courts. The Court of New York, in “NML Capital Ltd. vs. Argentina” (NML), tried to solve this situation with an injunction that blocked the payments of Argentina’s sovereign debt. The specialized literature has theoretically predicted that this injunction would cause harm to third parties and problems with other States. This article empirically corroborates these predictions with the analysis of a trial derived from NML: the “Citibank Argentina” case. The analysis of this case confirms the restraints presented by the literature about the lack of proper consideration of the requirements that the American legal system imposes for the applicability of an injunction that affects third parties and operates extraterritorially. Similarly, this paper argues that there are solid legal reasons for the authorities of third countries to declare inadmissible the extraterritorial effects of an injunction, such as the one obtained by NML, when those effects fall on assets and agents located in these authorities jurisdiction. |
id |
FGV-2_7ec2dfdc5c394b0f5d1590ee13ab372b |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/77115 |
network_acronym_str |
FGV-2 |
network_name_str |
Revista Direito GV |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunctionExecutabilidade das sentenças de condenação de Estados soberanos: análise crítica da injunction do caso NML vs. ArgentinaSovereign debtVulture fundsInjunctionSovereign immunityEnforceabilityDívida soberanaFundos oportunistasLinjunctionImunidade soberanaExtraterritorialidadeSentences against sovereign States are difficult to enforce in courts. The Court of New York, in “NML Capital Ltd. vs. Argentina” (NML), tried to solve this situation with an injunction that blocked the payments of Argentina’s sovereign debt. The specialized literature has theoretically predicted that this injunction would cause harm to third parties and problems with other States. This article empirically corroborates these predictions with the analysis of a trial derived from NML: the “Citibank Argentina” case. The analysis of this case confirms the restraints presented by the literature about the lack of proper consideration of the requirements that the American legal system imposes for the applicability of an injunction that affects third parties and operates extraterritorially. Similarly, this paper argues that there are solid legal reasons for the authorities of third countries to declare inadmissible the extraterritorial effects of an injunction, such as the one obtained by NML, when those effects fall on assets and agents located in these authorities jurisdiction.As sentenças contra Estados soberanos são difíceis de executar judicialmente. O Tribunal de Nova York, no processo NML Capital Ltd. v. Argentina (NML), tentou modificar esta situação por meio de uma injunction, que bloqueou os pagamentos da dívida soberana argentina. A literatura especializada previu teoricamente que esta injunction causaria danos a terceiros inocentes e problemas com outros Estados. Este artigo corrobora empiricamente essas previsões através da análise de um processo derivado do NML: o caso Citibank Argentina. Sua análise confirma a validade das reservas oportunamente apresentadas pela literatura sobre a falta de uma avaliação adequada pelo Tribunal indicado dos requisitos que o sistema jurídico dos Estados Unidos impõe para que seja válida uma injunction que afeta terceiros e opera extraterritorialmente. O artigo também argumenta que existem razões jurídicas de peso para que as autoridades de terceiros países declarem improcedentes os efeitos extraterritoriais de uma injunction, como a obtida pelo NML, quando esses efeitos recaem sobre ativos e agentes localizados na jurisdição dessas autoridades.Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas2018-09-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115Revista Direito GV; Vol. 14 No. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-706Revista Direito GV; Vol. 14 Núm. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-706Revista Direito GV; v. 14 n. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-7062317-6172reponame:Revista Direito GVinstname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)instacron:FGVenghttps://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115/73921Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Direito GVinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessManzo, Alejandro2019-08-06T14:07:55Zoai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/77115Revistahttps://direitosp.fgv.br/publicacoes/revista/revista-direito-gvPRIhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||revistadireitogv@fgv.br|| catarina.barbieri@fgv.br2317-61721808-2432opendoar:2019-08-06T14:07:55Revista Direito GV - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction Executabilidade das sentenças de condenação de Estados soberanos: análise crítica da injunction do caso NML vs. Argentina |
title |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
spellingShingle |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction Manzo, Alejandro Sovereign debt Vulture funds Injunction Sovereign immunity Enforceability Dívida soberana Fundos oportunistas Linjunction Imunidade soberana Extraterritorialidade |
title_short |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
title_full |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
title_fullStr |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
title_full_unstemmed |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
title_sort |
Enforceability of judgments against sovereign States: critical analysis of the NML vs. Argentina injunction |
author |
Manzo, Alejandro |
author_facet |
Manzo, Alejandro |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Manzo, Alejandro |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Sovereign debt Vulture funds Injunction Sovereign immunity Enforceability Dívida soberana Fundos oportunistas Linjunction Imunidade soberana Extraterritorialidade |
topic |
Sovereign debt Vulture funds Injunction Sovereign immunity Enforceability Dívida soberana Fundos oportunistas Linjunction Imunidade soberana Extraterritorialidade |
description |
Sentences against sovereign States are difficult to enforce in courts. The Court of New York, in “NML Capital Ltd. vs. Argentina” (NML), tried to solve this situation with an injunction that blocked the payments of Argentina’s sovereign debt. The specialized literature has theoretically predicted that this injunction would cause harm to third parties and problems with other States. This article empirically corroborates these predictions with the analysis of a trial derived from NML: the “Citibank Argentina” case. The analysis of this case confirms the restraints presented by the literature about the lack of proper consideration of the requirements that the American legal system imposes for the applicability of an injunction that affects third parties and operates extraterritorially. Similarly, this paper argues that there are solid legal reasons for the authorities of third countries to declare inadmissible the extraterritorial effects of an injunction, such as the one obtained by NML, when those effects fall on assets and agents located in these authorities jurisdiction. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-09-26 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115 |
url |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/view/77115/73921 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Direito GV info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Direito GV |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Direito GV; Vol. 14 No. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-706 Revista Direito GV; Vol. 14 Núm. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-706 Revista Direito GV; v. 14 n. 2 (2018): maio-ago (30); 682-706 2317-6172 reponame:Revista Direito GV instname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) instacron:FGV |
instname_str |
Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
instacron_str |
FGV |
institution |
FGV |
reponame_str |
Revista Direito GV |
collection |
Revista Direito GV |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Direito GV - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||revistadireitogv@fgv.br|| catarina.barbieri@fgv.br |
_version_ |
1798943710194434048 |