Pari Passu Clauses: An Alternative Interpretation

[Hayk Kupelyants is a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge] Pari passu clauses remain perhaps the most nebulous clauses found in sovereign bonds. Among varying wordings, the clause in its simplest form provides that the bonds will rank pari passu (i.e., on equal footing). The clause puzzled many academics and has given rise to legal battles before national courts, for it is undeniable that the state is not subject to a bankruptcy regime where the pari passu treatment is naturally well-fitted. Two interpretations have been offered to demystify the function of the pari passu in sovereign debt bonds. The first and the most controversial of these constructions argues that the clause requires equal payment to all, even holdout, bondholders. Recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in NML v Argentina has endorsed this interpretation of the pari passu clause. Under this construction of the clause, a sovereign debtor is obliged to pay to all bondholders, even those who held out from the sovereign debt restructuring. The pari passu clause can thus become a powerful tool in the hands of holdout creditors which seek to reclaim the full value of the bonds they hold by claiming that the state is in breach of the pari passu clause by the mere fact of refusing to pay up. Many academics have argued that this interpretation of the pari passu clause is too far-fetched (at least for the pari passu clauses that do not expressly refer to ‘payment’ in their wording). On its face, pari passu clauses simply require equal (legal) ranking, whereas the payment under bonds is a question of factual performance of the contract and not a question of priorities or ranking. The second and the conventional interpretation of the pari passu clause argues that the clause merely ensures equal legal ranking and no factual equality in terms of payment. By this, the sovereign debtor would be under no obligation to pay to all bondholders. Two counter-arguments spring to mind.

[Dov Jacobs is an Assistant Professor of International Law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University and comments on international law issues at Spreading the Jam.] Carsten Stahn, Jennifer Easterday and Jens Iverson have edited a comprehensive and rich volume on the law applicable in the aftermath of conflict, also known as Jus Post Bellum. This book covers...

[Cymie R. Payne is Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University and the School of Law - Camden.] In my contribution to Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations, I claim that: Existing treaty law prohibits some infliction of environmental damage, but only if it is “widespread, long-term and/or severe.” There is evidence of state practice recognizing the importance...

[Christine Bell is Assistant Principal (Global Justice), Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Edinburgh.]  A big congratulations on the editors for the new volume on Jus Post Bellum.  It is a great resource for those interested in all aspects of the debate and forms a comprehensive mapping of a broad range of perspectives. One of the interesting aspects of the book is...

We have a new challenger in the competition for worst decision by a military commission ever! Judge Pohl has now issued an order in al-Nashiri concluding that Charge IX, Hijacking or Hazarding a Vessel or Aircraft, states a violation of the international laws of war. Here is the definition of that "war crime," 10 U.S.C. § 950t(23): (23) Hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft.— Any person...

[Jennifer Easterday is a researcher for the Jus Post Bellum Project at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, Leiden University.] In my chapter of this volume, I suggest that jus post bellum should be considered as a broad, holistic concept that includes different functions: jus post bellum as providing a body of norms, as an interpretive framework,...

I argued more than three years ago that the US decision to prosecute Abd al-Rahim Abdul al-Nashiri in a military commission was illegitimate, because the attack on the USS Cole did not take place during an armed conflict. (I also pointed out that al-Nashiri was systematically tortured, including through the use of mock executions and waterboarding.) Peter Margulies takes a...

[Ruti Teitel is the Ernst C. Stiefel Professor of Comparative Law, New York Law School, Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics, www.securityintransition.org.] I am delighted to participate in the discussion regarding Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations.  The book’s publication on the 100th anniversary of World War I and its aftermath set out in the Treaty of Versailles reflects the...

[Jens Iverson is a Researcher for the ‘Jus Post Bellum’ project and an attorney specializing in public international law, Universiteit Leiden.] I would like to thank Opinio Juris for the opportunity to discuss the contrast between Transitional Justice and Jus Post Bellum.  This is a subject I have explored in Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations, in the International Journal of...

[James Gallen is a Lecturer in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University.] Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations provides an important assessment of the potential of international law to shape post-conflict societies in a space of competing and fragmented debates. I agree with Eric de Brabandere’s contribution to this symposium that if jus post bellum is...

[Eric De Brabandere is Associate Professor of International Law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies and a Member of the Brussels Bar.] My contribution to Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations, edited by my colleagues Carsten Stahn, Jennifer Easterday and Jens Iverson critically examines the usefulness and accuracy of jus post bellum (JPB) as a legal concept and...