A Study Of The Evolution Of International Sovereign Debt Relief Norm

Sovereign debt relief norms are important standards and tools to guide the international community in dealing with sovereign debt issues.Especially for China,as an emerging creditor country,the study of international norms in this area is of great practical significance.Since the emergence of sovereign debt relief norms in 1976,its nearly 50-year development history provides us with a typical case for studying the evolution of international norms,covering different stages of emergence,cascade and internalization.This paper takes the international sovereign debt relief norms itself as the object of study,integrating the political economy activity of sovereign debt relief into the analysis of international normative evolution theory,rather than focusing only on the debt policies and practices of a particular international actor.Using the research perspective of international political economy,the paper traces the dynamic process of the different stages of the evolution of sovereign debt relief shares from three dimensions:the evolutionary process of sovereign debt relief norms,the role of critical states in the various stages of norm evolution and the problems of sovereign debt relief norms,and explores how the interaction of international political economy elements shape the normative evolution.The period from 1976 to 1999 is the emergence stage of sovereign debt relief norms.Normative entrepreneurs,mainly from developing countries,religious groups,NGOs,and a few creditor countries,introduced a new concept of direct debt relief to solve international sovereign debt problems.After a long debate with most of its creditors,especially the members of the Paris Club,sovereign debt relief itself gradually moved from a concept to concrete goals,mechanisms and instruments.At the same time,more and more creditor countries were convinced by normative entrepreneurs or adopted a more moderate response based on strategic considerations.With the establishment of the HIPC Initiative in 1996 and the Enhanced HIPC Initiative in 1999,the norm of sovereign debt relief took shape.After 1999,the norms of sovereign debt relief entered the stage of cascade and internalization.With the convening of three international summits in Okinawa,Evian and Gleneagles,the recipients,the amount of debt relief and the to rgets of sovereign debt relief norms have been expanded.At the same time,the level of legitimacy and institutionalization of sovereign debt relief norms also increased.In this period,the sovereign debt relief norms have been taken as a matter of course by the international community.Even in the face of the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic since 2020,the status of sovereign debt relief norms has not been shaken.Rather,it continues to guide the international community in forging new debt relief practices such as the Debt Service Suspension Initiative and the Common Debt Treatment Framework.In the evolution of international sovereign debt relief norms,four critical states emerged,which played a very crucial role in the successful evolution of the norms and constituted the motivation for the normative evolution.The UK was the key advocate in the norm emergence stage,Japan and the US were the key recipients and supporters in the norm cascade stage,and China was the key participant in the norm internalization stage.By playing different roles in each stage of norm evolution,these critical states have become the necessary conditions for the successful evolution of international sovereign debt relief norms.At the same time,this paper attempts to analyze the specific reasons why these critical states,advocated,accepted,supported and participant the norms.Contrary to what the established normative evolution theory predicts,international sovereign debt relief norms do not evolve spontaneously and automatically with the interaction of creditors.In fact,countries’ attitudes toward norms stem from their cost/benefit calculations influenced by their respective notions of social identity,rather than from mere moral suasion or normative esteem.Finally,the internalized norms of sovereign debt relief are not without problems.In fact,there are fundamental issues that have not been properly addressed and have been consciously ignored by the creditor side during its evolution.This has led to a recurrence of sovereign debt relief and developing country sovereign debt problems,with many countries that have received debt relief quickly falling back into unsustainable debt distress.Such deep-rooted problems are mainly concentrated in three areas.First,an incomplete normative framework.The normative framework of sovereign debt relief is characterized by ad hoc,fragmented and incomplete,and in particular,it has never been defined in the form of international law.Second,un-development sustainability.The normative emphasis has always been on debt sustainability rather than development sustainability,with the aim of ensuring that debtor countries maximize the repayment of their external debt to the best of their ability.Third,asymmetrical power relations.Although the sovereign debt relief norms are designed to address the debt problems faced by debtor countries,but debtor countries have not been allowed to participate in the normative system,and the core system of the norms has been designed almost entirely by the creditor countries.These endogenous problems in the sovereign debt relief norm have seriously affected its effectiveness and,to a certain extent,led to the regression of the sovereign debt relief norm.