Abstract
Abstract The article brings the debate about Global Justice to the centre stage of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDRs) field. The judicial system that intervenes in sovereign debt conflicts was not on the agenda of the last reform processes activated in this field. In the NML Capital vs. Argentina (NML) trial, judges from different instances and different jurisdictions issued declarations of the same dimensions related to the same object of litigation. The article makes a comparative analysis of the argumentative strategies that judges used at the time of justifying their positions in order to show the tensions in which they incurred. It is explained that: a) these tensions are the result of agents -the judges- that must take decisions in a context of crossroads where the expected option in accordance with usual legal practices would undermine their own position in the field of sovereign debt market; b) these crossroads are rooted in the structural limits of the judicial system in which these agents operate. Contrary to what official statements postulate, it is argued that these limits conspire against the possibility that state courts provide Justice in transnational disputes, in which they must judge another equally sovereign State.
Highlights
The debate about Justice has not yet occurred in the dominant positions of the sovereign debt market.1 Modern Age hegemonic worldview of a State-centric Justice has been questioned over the last decades from multiple directions (Rawls, 1999, Habermas 2005, Pogge 2008, Beitz 1999)
The paper completes its conceptual framework defining the meaning of the three selected dimensions, and tracing an analytical line between them and two structural limits to which the judges are subject at the time of intervening in typical sovereign debt market conflicts as: a) the limit that arises from the State scale of the jurisdiction in relation to the trans-State scale in which these disputes are in essence reproduced and b) the limit that emerges from the State character of the courts at the moment of judging another sovereign State (Manzo, 2018a; 2018b)
The vast majority of these actions were declined as a result of the Argentinean Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDRs) processes of 2005 and 2010, accepted by 93% of the creditor universe to which they were directed (Ranieri, 2015)
Summary
The debate about Justice has not yet occurred in the dominant positions of the sovereign debt market. Modern Age hegemonic worldview of a State-centric Justice has been questioned over the last decades from multiple directions (Rawls, 1999, Habermas 2005, Pogge 2008, Beitz 1999). The paper completes its conceptual framework defining the meaning of the three selected dimensions, and tracing an analytical line between them and two structural limits to which the judges are subject at the time of intervening in typical sovereign debt market conflicts as: a) the limit that arises from the State scale of the jurisdiction in relation to the trans-State scale in which these disputes are in essence reproduced and b) the limit that emerges from the State character of the courts at the moment of judging another sovereign State (Manzo, 2018a; 2018b) By means of this interface between the analysis level of social practices and that of social structures (see table 2), this article means to form part of the global Justice contemporary debate from a different perspective. Assistant agents and citizens in general) did not receive any compensation for the damages they suffered
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
