Antik Dünyadan Günümüze Tiksindirici Borç: Bir Doktrinin Tarihsel ve Hukuksal Evrimi

Öz

Tiksindirici borç (odious debt) doktrini, modern uluslararası hukukun en tartışmalı kesişim noktalarından birini (devlet halefiyeti, egemen borç ve geçiş dönemi adaleti) bir araya getiren melez bir kavramdır. Klasik biçimiyle 1927'de Rus asıllı hukukçu Alexander Nahum Sack tarafından sistemleştirilen doktrin, bir devlet borcunun (i) halkın rızası olmadan, (ii) halkın yararına kullanılmadan ve (iii) bunu bilen ya da bilmesi gereken alacaklılar tarafından sağlanması durumunda halef yönetim için bağlayıcı sayılmaması gerektiğini ileri sürer. Çalışma, niteliksel-tarihsel bir hukuk inceleme yöntemi benimseyerek birincil kaynaklar ile ikincil literatürü bütünleştirmekte ve üç temel soru çerçevesinde gelişmektedir. Birincisi, modern doktrinin tarihsel öncülleri nelerdir ve antik dönemin borç iptal pratikleriyle çağdaş doktrin arasında ne tür kavramsal süreklilikler ya da kopuşlar mevcuttur? İkincisi, Sack'in 1927 incelemesinden 1923 Tinoco Tahkimi'ne, 1983 Viyana Sözleşmesi'ne ve 2007 UNCTAD raporuna uzanan kodifikasyon süreci doktrinin hukuksal statüsünü nasıl şekillendirmiştir? Üçüncüsü, yirmi birinci yüzyılın egemen borç krizleri, özellikle Irak, Ekvador, Ukrayna ve Suriye vakaları bağlamında doktrinin operasyonel önemi nedir ve ne tür eleştirilerle karşılaşmaktadır? Makale, doktrinin kavramsal köklerini Mezopotamya'nın amargi geleneğine, İbrani Yubile Yılı'na, Solon'un seisachtheia reformuna ve Roma hukukunun yönetici-devlet ayrımına kadar izlemekte; bu mirası Meksika (1867) ve Küba (1898) gibi on dokuzuncu yüzyıl öncülleriyle bütünleştirerek borcun kutsallığının her zaman koşullu olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, doktrinin yerleşmiş bir uluslararası örf-adet hukuku kuralı haline gelememekle birlikte, kavramsal yaşam ile hukuksal kristalizasyon arasındaki yarıkta varlığını sürdürdüğünü ve çağdaş uygulamalarda "fiili kabul, hukuki ret" örüntüsünü koruduğunu saptamaktadır. Sonuç olarak doktrin, yerleşik bir hukuk kuralından çok bir hukuksal-siyasal referans çerçevesi olarak işlemekte; otoriter rejimlerin yıkılmasının ardından gündeme gelen borç krizleri için vazgeçilmez bir normatif çerçeve sunmaya devam etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İktisat Teorisi
• Hukuk ve İktisat
• Tiksindirici Borç
• Kurumsal İktisat.

Odious Debt from the Ancient World to the Present: The Historical and Legal Evolution of a Doctrine

Öz

The doctrine of odious debt constitutes a hybrid concept that brings together one of the most contentious intersections of modern international law: state succession, sovereign debt, and transitional justice. In its classical formulation, systematized in 1927 by the Russian jurist Alexander Nahum Sack, the doctrine holds that a state debt should not be binding on a successor regime if it was incurred (i) without the consent of the people, (ii) not for the benefit of the people, and (iii) with the knowledge, or presumed knowledge, of the creditors. Adopting a qualitative-historical method of legal analysis that integrates primary sources with the secondary literature, this article is developed around three research questions. First, what are the historical antecedents of the modern doctrine, and what conceptual continuities or discontinuities exist between ancient debt cancellation practices and the contemporary doctrine? Second, how has the codification process, extending from Sack's 1927 treatise through the 1923 Tinoco arbitration and the 1983 Vienna Convention to the 2007 UNCTAD report, shaped the doctrine's legal status? Third, what is the operational significance of the doctrine in the context of twenty-first-century sovereign debt crises, particularly those of Iraq, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Syria? Tracing the conceptual roots of the doctrine back to the Mesopotamian amargi tradition, the Hebrew Jubilee Year, Solon's seisachtheia reform, and the Roman ruler-state distinction, the article shows that the sanctity of debt has always been conditional. It finds that, although the doctrine has not crystallized into an established rule of customary international law, it persists in the gap between conceptual vitality and legal codification, retaining a pattern of de facto acceptance and de jure rejection in contemporary practice. The study concludes that the doctrine nevertheless provides an indispensable normative reference framework for debt crises arising in the aftermath of the collapse of authoritarian regimes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Theory
• Law and Economics
• Odious Debt
• Institutional Economics.

Kaynakça

1. Adams, P. (1991). Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy. Londra: Earthscan.
2. Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada Claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) [Tinoco Tahkimi] (1923). Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 1, 369-399.
3. Aquinas, T. (1920). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Çev.). Londra: Burns, Oates & Washbourne. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1265-1274).
4. Aristoteles. (1984). Atinalıların Devleti (F. Akderin, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi MÖ 4. yüzyıl).
5. Aristoteles. (2017). Politika (F. Akderin, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi MÖ 4. yüzyıl). Bedjaoui, M. (1968-1981). Reports on succession of States in respect of matters other than treaties (BM Doküman No. A/CN.4/204 - A/CN.4/345). Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu.
6. Birleşmiş Milletler. (1983). Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts (UN Doc. A/CONF.117/14). https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_3_1983.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
7. Black, A. (1992). Political Thought in Europe, 1250-1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Brunt, P. A. (1966). The 'Fiscus' and its development. The Journal of Roman Studies, 56(1-2), 75-91. doi:10.2307/300135

9. Buchheit, L. C., Gulati, M. ve Thompson, R. B. (2007). The dilemma of odious debts. Duke Law Journal, 56(5), 1201-1262.
10. Bühler, K. G. (2001). State Succession and Membership in International Organizations: Legal Theories versus Political Pragmatism. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
11. CADTM (Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debts). (2016). Topicality of the odious debt doctrine. https://www.cadtm.org/Topicality-of-the-odious-debt (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
12. Cunningham, M. (2017). The Mexican expedition of 1862-1867 and the end of the French Second Empire. French History, 31(1), 79-104. doi:10.1093/fh/crw078
13. Dünya Bankası. (2025). International Debt Report 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/debt-statistics/idr/products (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
14. El-Gamal, M. A. (2006). Islamic Finance: Law, Economics, and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Feibelman, A. (2010). Ecuador's sovereign default: A Pyrrhic victory for odious debt? Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 25(7), 357-362.
16. Finkelstein, J. J. (1969). The edict of Ammiṣaduqa: A new text. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, 63(1), 45-64.
17. Flandreau, M. (2013). Sovereign states, bondholders committees, and the London Stock Exchange in the nineteenth century (1827-68): New facts and old fictions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(4), 668-696. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grt026
18. Flores Zendejas, J. H. (2021). Sovereignty and debt in nineteenth-century Latin America. P. Pénet ve J. Flores Zendejas (Ed.), Sovereign Debt Diplomacies: Rethinking Sovereign Debt from Colonial Empires to Hegemony içinde (ss. 53-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Forsdyke, S. (2006). Land, labor and economy in Solonian Athens: Breaking the impasse between archaeology and history. J. H. Blok ve A. P. M. H. Lardinois (Ed.), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches içinde (ss. 334-350). Leiden: Brill.
20. Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House.
21. Grotius, H. (2005). The Rights of War and Peace [De Iure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres] (R. Tuck, Ed., 3 Cilt). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1625).
22. Hanna, A. J. ve Hanna, K. A. (1971). Napoleon III and Mexico: American Triumph over Monarchy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
23. Hinrichsen, S. (2019). The Iraq sovereign debt restructuring (LSE Department of Economic History Working Papers, No. 304). London: London School of Economics. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108960/ (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
24. Howse, R. (2007). The concept of odious debt in public international law (UNCTAD Discussion Paper No. 185). Cenevre: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osgdp20074_en.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
25. Hudson, M. (2018). ...And Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year. Dresden: ISLET-Verlag.
26. Jayachandran, S. ve Kremer, M. (2006). Odious debt. American Economic Review, 96(1), 82-92. doi:10.1257/000282806776157696
27. King, J. (2016). The Doctrine of Odious Debt in International Law: A Restatement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kutsal Kitap: Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil). (2001). İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.
29. Langholm, O. (1992). Economics in the Medieval Schools: Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money and Usury According to the Paris Theological Tradition 1200-1350. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
30. Lienau, O. (2014). Rethinking Sovereign Debt: Politics, Reputation, and Legitimacy in Modern Finance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Ludington, S., Gulati, M. ve Brophy, A. L. (2010). Applied legal history: Demystifying the doctrine of odious debts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 11(1), 247-281.
32. Marichal, C. (1989). A Century of Debt Crises in Latin America: From Independence to the Great Depression, 1820-1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33. Mazarei, A. (2025). Syria needs a debt restructuring, but that will be difficult. Peterson Institute for International Economics Realtime Economics Blog. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/syria-needs-debt-restructuring-will-be-difficult (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2026).
34. Megliani, M. (2024). The odious debt doctrine: The equitable rule. German Law Journal, 25, 772-796. doi:10.1017/glj.2024.21
35. Millar, F. (1963). The fiscus in the first two centuries. The Journal of Roman Studies, 53(1-2), 29-42. doi:10.2307/298362
36. Ober, J. (1989). Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37. Plutarkhos. (2005). Paralel Yaşamlar: Solon (F. Akderin, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi MS 1. yüzyıl).
38. Porzecanski, A. C. (2010). When bad things happen to good sovereign debt contracts: The case of Ecuador. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(4), 251-271.
39. Quaglioni, D. (1983). Politica e diritto nel Trecento italiano: Il "De tyranno" di Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1314-1357), con l'edizione critica dei trattati "De Guelphis et Gebellinis", "De regimine civitatis" e "De Tyranno". Floransa: Leo S. Olschki. Rhodes, P. J. (1981). A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ridley, J. (2001). Maximilian and Juárez. Londra: Phoenix Press.
40. Sack, A. N. (1927). Les Effets des Transformations des États sur leurs Dettes Publiques et Autres Obligations Financières: Traité Juridique et Financier. Paris: Recueil Sirey.
41. Sargent, T. J. ve Velde, F. R. (1995). Macroeconomic features of the French Revolution. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 474-518. doi:10.1086/261991
42. Schorr, M. (1915). Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der I. babylonischen Dynastie. Viyana: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.
43. Skinner, Q. (1978). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume One: The Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Stern, B. (1996). La succession d'États. Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye, 262, 9-437.
45. Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Odious rulers, odious debts. The Atlantic Monthly, 292(4), 39-45.
46. Toussaint, E. (2012). The long tradition of debt cancellation in Mesopotamia and Egypt from 3000 to 1000 BC. CADTM Publications. https://www.cadtm.org/The-Long-Tradition-of-Debt (Erişim Tarihi: 23.04.2026).
47. Toussaint, E. (2017). Mexico proved that debt can be repudiated. CADTM Publications.
48. https://www.cadtm.org/Mexico-proved-that-debt-can-be (Erişim Tarihi: 23.04.2026). Toussaint, E. (2019). Le Système Dette: Histoire des Dettes Souveraines et de Leur Répudiation. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
49. Turlington, E. (1930). Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors. New York: Columbia University Press. UNCTAD. (2025). A World of Debt 2025: It is Time for Reform. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/publication/world-of-debt (Erişim Tarihi: 26.04.2026).
50. Vattel, E. de (2008). The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns [Le Droit des Gens] (B. Kapossy ve R. Whatmore, Ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1758).
51. Williams, P. R. ve Harris, J. (2001). State succession to debts and assets: The modern law and policy. Harvard International Law Journal, 42(2), 355-417.