Can Syria get rid of the former regime's debts to Iran and Russia?

Asharq Al-Awsat revealed that talks have been underway between Damascus and Moscow since last March regarding debts owed to the Russian government, estimated at between $20 and $23 billion.

The Saudi newspaper also revealed that Iran is demanding repayment of its debts owed to the former regime, which it says amount to approximately $30 billion.

The newspaper reported that amid the new government's attempts to rebuild the shattered Syrian economy, the issue of massive sovereign debts has emerged as one of the issues that must be addressed. It noted that the biggest question today is: can the new Syrian government refuse to repay these debts, claiming that the funds, directly or indirectly, were used to suppress the revolution that ultimately had its say?

In a report by Reuters, it interviewed two legal experts on sovereign debt issues: Lee C. Bouchette, Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh Law School, and Mitu Gulati, Professor at the University of Virginia Law School.

The two experts pointed out that the issue of government succession, or succession, is one of the strictest rules in international law. New governments in any country are supposed to inherit the rights and obligations left behind by previous administrations, regardless of their political ideologies. The obligation to repay the debts incurred by those previous regimes is absolute, or almost absolute. Whether the Bolsheviks replaced the Tsar in Russia in 1917, Corazon Aquino overthrew Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines in 1986, or Trump replaced Joe Biden in 2025, the principle remains the same: every new government inherits the obligations of its predecessor, even if it is deemed corrupt or ill-advised.

However, the two experts say, there is one type of debt that most people agree should not be binding on a new government: what is known as "war debt." The classic scenario is where rebels fight the ruling regime to assert control over the country, and the regime borrows money to purchase weapons and suppress them. If the rebels win, is it logical for them to be forced to repay the funds originally used to fight them and oust them from power?

There are historical precedents in this regard: In 1883, the Mexican government refused to repay debts borrowed by Emperor Maximilian of Habsburg, as he attempted to cling to power. After the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, Britain took the position that it would only recognize debts incurred by the South African government before the start of the war, not after. The argument it advanced was that the victorious party in a war is not obligated to repay debts incurred by the defeated party after the fighting began.

In the 1970s, Cambodia refused to repay debts to the United States dating back to 1974-1975, when the Washington-backed Lon Nol regime was fighting a civil war that it lost to the Khmer Rouge. If we consider that "war debts" actually constitute a recognized legal exception to the principle of governmental succession, the new Syrian government may be able to exploit this legal basis, especially since Assad borrowed money during the fighting.

The newspaper concluded that settling Syria's debt issue will be a complex process, but the new government may have a legal advantage.