Reconciling the Irreconcilable? Sovereign Debt Restructuring and the Principles of International Law. A Law and Economics Perspective

This Thesis focuses on the principles of international law relevant to the resolution of legal disputes arising from sovereign insolvency conflicts. It attempts to contribute to the “incremental” approach literature by identifying principles, justifying their application in litigation and assessing whether they may help to reconcile the trade-offs prevalent in that context. For that purpose, this Thesis distinguishes between two different types of principles. First, it investigates the “Principles of Public International Law” (henceforth, “PIL principles”). Said category refers to norms of the law of nations which can be considered functionally and structurally similar to domestic constitutional principles (i.e., that can be regarded as “optimization” or “prima facie” requirements). This Thesis underscores the PIL principles protecting the interests of the creditors and citizens as well as the “public interest”, arguing that decision makers face a trade-off between these principles in the context of restructurings. Secondly, this Thesis inquires into the “general principles of domestic law” (henceforth, “GPDs”) which can be applied in sovereign debt restructuring. Two GPDs are identified: a “stay” on litigation and a “cram down” on dissenting creditors’ claims. Although both principles have been identified by the prior literature, this work advances a small but significant “twist” in the methodology used for that purpose: it relies exclusively on functional and comparative analysis. Moreover, this work justifies the application of said GPDs for two jurisdictions: New York and Germany. Finally, it posits that those GPDs can help to mitigate the trade-offs between PIL principles, thus reconciling the interests at stake.

Weak reasoning argumentative theory. A dialogical approach for the discovery of philosophy in high schools

In the literature on philosophical practices, despite the crucial role that argumentation plays in these activities, no specific argumentative theories have ever been proposed to assist the figure of the facilitator in conducting philosophical dialogue and to enhance student’s critical thinking skills. The dissertation starts from a cognitive perspective that challenges the classic Cartesian notion of rationality by focusing on limits and biases of human reasoning. An argumentative model (WRAT – Weak Reasoning Argumentative Theory) is then outlined in order to respond to the needs of philosophical dialogue. After justifying the claim that this learning activity, among other inductive methodologies, is the most suitable for critical thinking education, I inquired into the specific goal of ‘arguing’ within this context by means of the tools provided by Speech Act Theory: the speaker’s intention is to construct new knowledge by questioning her own and other’s beliefs. The model proposed has been theorized on this assumption, starting from which the goals, and, in turn, the related norms, have been pinpointed. In order to include all the epistemic attitudes required to accomplish the complex task of arguing in philosophical dialogue, I needed to integrate two opposed cognitive accounts, Dual Process Theory and Evolutionary Approach, that, although they provide incompatible descriptions of reasoning, can be integrated to provide a normative account of argumentation. The model, apart from offering a theoretical contribution to argumentation studies, is designed to be applied to the Italian educational system, in particular to classes in technical and professional high schools belonging to the newly created network Inventio. This initiative is one of the outcomes of the research project by the same name, which also includes an original Syllabus, research seminars, a monitoring action and publications focused on introducing philosophy, in the form of workshop activities, into technical and professional schools.