If a private creditor gives a loan to a private person, knowing that the money is used to finance a crime, a civil court would declare the credit contract as nil and void. Contract law provides legal rules such as „void for illegality“ and principles of “good faith“ or “boni mores” to deal with such odious debts. This level of civilization achieved in private law has never been reached in international relations. If a sovereign state takes up an international credit to finance an aggressive war, an apparatus of oppression or to channel the money into the private coffers of office holders the rule of succession requires that a subsequent government has to honor the debt. This applies even if the creditor was aware of how the money was used and no matter what hardship this implies for the people in the debtor country. There are exceptions to this rule, which states treat like black boxes. After the Spanish Cuban war of 1898 independent Cuba was forgiven the debt from Spanish Government bonds, as they were odious as stated in the peace treaty between the USA and Spain. The same argument applied for German bonds used in territories, which became part of the new Republic of Poland after World War I. And after the dethronement of Saddam Hussein in Iraq creditors forgave most of their debts to Iraq under heavy political pressure from the IMF and the USA. However, these cases -regardless of how legitimate the outcomes may be- reflect not so much decisions based on the rule of law but more the distribution of power after a war. South Africa was not forgiven any of its international debts, even though some of the money financed apartheid and everybody knew it. South Africa after apartheid did not want to agonize creditors and a judicial routine to cope with the problem did not exist. When it comes to odious debts international relations are better conceptualized by an analysis of the Hobbesian state of nature than by a concept of law, based on fair rules and principles.