The treatment of state insolvency by private international law.

Summary Despite the frequency of financial crises, states do not have an insolvency mechanism. Noting this lack of institutional regulation, our research has a dual objective: to identify existing tools for dealing with state insolvency and to assess their effectiveness. State insolvency presents several specificities. The first stems from the absence of regulation in this area: in the absence of an applicable insolvency mechanism, it is the judge who is likely to be seized. The second relates to the person of the debtor. The sovereign quality of the debtor party influences the way in which the insolvency is implemented. In such a situation, the State is tempted to intervene unilaterally on its debt, either to cancel the loan contracts, or to suspend or modify them. Finally, the third specificity lies in the person of the creditors. They do not form a uniform whole. They come from different legal orders and pursue different objectives. To respond to each of these difficulties, private international law is a privileged tool, at least with respect to private creditors. However, the result of the difficulties raised by the insolvency of the State is contrasted. When it comes to the question of access to the courts, private international law proves disappointing. It is not able to satisfy a unitary treatment of insolvency. On the other hand, the substantive mechanisms of private international law bring significant progress. If they are adapted, they are likely to ensure a certain regulation of state insolvency.