CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

Judgments against sovereign States are difficult to enforce in courts. The Court of New York, in the trial ?NML Capital Ltd. vs. Argentina? (NML), tried to solve this situation with an injunction that blocked the payments of Argentina´s sovereign debt. The specialized literature predicted theoretically that this injunction would harm third parties and cause problems with other States. This article empirically corroborates these predictions with the analysis of a trial derived from NML: the ?Citibank Argentina? case. The analysis of this case confirms the validity of the reservations presented by the literature about the lack of proper consideration of the requirements that the American legal system imposes for an injunction affecting third parties and operating extra-territorially to be applicable. Similarly, this paper argues that there are solid legal reasons for the authorities of third countries to declare inadmissible the extraterritorial effects of an injunction, such as that obtained by NML, when those effects fall on assets and agents located in these authorities jurisdiction.