MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 27th 2021 - 01:00 UTC

 

 

Argentina planning to question Judge Griesa before the International Court of Justice

Tuesday, August 5th 2014 - 07:14 UTC
Full article 102 comments
Argentina refuses to accept Griesa’s ruling as the final instance of legal recourse, and will challenge his pari passu ruling imminently in the Hague. Argentina refuses to accept Griesa’s ruling as the final instance of legal recourse, and will challenge his pari passu ruling imminently in the Hague.

Argentina's Legal and Technical Secretary to the Presidency Carlos Zannini is overseeing a group of experts in international law as they draft the suit the government of President Cristina Fernandez will file against US Judge Thomas Griesa’s ruling on full repayment to holdout bondholders at International Court of Justice in the Hague, according to Noticias Argentinas-

 The Argentine government will reportedly emphasize its rights as a member of the UN, the International Monetary Fund and the Organization of American States.

With international legal action in the works, deputy Economy Minister Emmanuel Alvarez Agis said on Sunday that the government will insist on the removal of lawyer Daniel Pollack as mediator in the lingering dispute with the holdouts. Kicillof and Agis argue the mediator has acted subserviently to the interests of the plaintiffs.

“We are going to make the formal request and we will see what the judge responds,” the official told a Buenos Aires radio. He reiterated that “more than being a mediator, Pollack has put on the vultures’ shirt, because he’s not demanding anything from them.”

The Argentine government’s lawyers last Friday requested that Pollack be removed, but the motion was denied. Argentina will nonetheless present a written request.

Argentina will thus refuse to accept Griesa’s ruling as the final instance of legal recourse, and will challenge his pari passu ruling imminently in the Hague.

International law dictates that if a sentence by a country’s judicial system affects another state, the dispute can be brought before the international tribunal in the Netherlands.

Taking the case before the International Court of Justice wouldn’t be straightforward.

“The states concerned must also have access to the court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, states being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes,” the tribunal’s website reads.

The Barack Obama administration would therefore have to accept subordinating a decision by the US Supreme Court to the international jurisdiction of The Hague, a move that pundits consider unlikely considering the United States did not file an amicus brief and maintained a relatively neutral position during the pari passu court battle.

A further drawback is that credit rating agencies would extend the duration of their vetting of Argentine securities under the label of “selective default.”

This would delay the return to international credit markets the government had seemingly sought in resolving pending issues such as compensating Repsol for the expropriation of its majority stake in YPF.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Welsh Wizard

     “more than being a mediator, Pollack has put on the vultures’ shirt, because he’s not demanding anything from them.”

    Jesus. He doesn't have to demand anything from them. They won. The only thing they need to do is turn up to the negotiations. They don't even need to negotiate once they are there.

    Aug 05th, 2014 - 07:28 am 0
  • Iron Man

    All they will succeed in doing is annoying the US. Not the brightest move when you need support on so many fronts.

    I wouldn't worry though. If their 'group of experts in international law' is of the same standard as all their other experts this will never see the light of day.

    Aug 05th, 2014 - 07:47 am 0
  • willi1

    “... if a sentence by a country’s judicial system affects another state, the dispute can be brought before the international tribunal in the Netherlands...”

    the bonds were placed under US law, German law, Japanese law and others. without that they would not have got a peso as credit. therefore, the legislation is under the bond-law, not under the ck-gang robberment law of argentina.
    try to understand that, ck, kicillof, capitanich and other good-for-nothings.

    Aug 05th, 2014 - 07:49 am 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!