The Argentine government filed suit Thursday at the International Court at The Hague against the U.S. government, charging that it has violated its “international obligation to respect the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, particularly its sovereign immunity.” The Court issued a statement saying it had received the request and that it has been “transmitted to the U.S. government.” It added, however, that no action will be taken in the proceedings “unless and until” Washington accepts the Court’s jurisdiction.
This step is part of the Argentine government’s bold multipronged international offensive against the Queen’s predatory vultures. On Thursday, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal published the government’s legal notice to those bondholders who participated in the 2005-2010 restructuring, advising them of their right to demand payment from the trustee bank, Bank of New York-Mellon, which is withholding payment to bondholders of $539 million, or “at any time, remove the Trustee and appoint a successor trustee.”
The hard-hitting ad asserts that Argentina is not in default, hammers Judge Thomas Griesa for exceeding his authority and jurisdiction, attacks the bias of special master Daniel Pollack, and points to the gross conflict of interest reflected in participation of vulture funds that are suing Argentina, in the International Swaps and Derivatives Association’s Aug. 1 vote declaring Argentina to be in default.
The ad didn’t sit well with Judge Griesa, who has called a hearing for 3:00 pm on Aug. 8 in New York with representatives of the vultures and Argentina specifically in response. Rumors are circulating that he may impose sanctions on Argentina or declare it in contempt of court.
Cabinet Chief of Staff Jorge Capitanich’s office issued a press release Thursday explaining that Argentina is suing the U.S. government for violating “its international obligation to respect the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, particularly its sovereign immunity,” and “its international obligation of not applying … measures of an economic or political character to force the sovereign will of another State….”
The U.S.’s violation of these obligations, the release addds, stems from the actions of its judiciary, which have “harmed the sovereign decisions of the Argentine Republic to restructure its foreign debt.” Given that a state is responsible for the conduct of the branches of its government, the press release continues, these violations “have created a controversy between the Argentine Republic and the United States, which our country is submitting to the International Court of Justice for resolution.”