Following the United States\u27 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq,\u27 the US government argued that the successor government in Iraq was not responsible for Iraq\u27s Saddam-era debt under the purported doctrine of odious-regime debt. This purported doctrine apparently excused--by operation of law--all successor regimes from repaying debts that were incurred by oppressive predecessor regimes. Here, Cheng presents three-part response regarding the purported rule that oppressive debts of a predecessor government do not bind its successor
