15. 斯蒂格利茨先生(哥伦比亚大学教授)说，金融界认为，缺乏基于原则的主权债务重组制度更有可能确保债权国获得偿还款。此外，一些当事方赞成在债务协议中加入集体行动条款，以此作为促进更迅速、更公平的债务重组的一种手段。然而，使用这些条款并没有解决不同类别债权国之间出现的问题。集体行动条款没有用于解决单个国家内部的债务问题，这最好地说明了在主权债务重组过程中采用法律框架的重要性。而债务问题则由破产法加以规范。关于特别提款权，很难看到美国和印度提出任何有说服力的反对货币基金组织提议发行的理由，特别是鉴于国会正在就 2 万亿美元的发行问题进行讨论。希望 2021 年的美国新一届政府会支持此发行提议。
15. Mr. Stiglitz (Professor, Columbia University) said that it was the view of the financial sector that the absence of a principles-based system of sovereign debt restructuring was more likely to ensure that creditors obtained repayment. Moreover, some parties favoured the insertion of collective action clauses into debt agreements as a means to facilitate more rapid and equitable debt restructuring. The use of such clauses, however, did not resolve problems that arose between different classes of creditors. The importance of introducing a legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring was best illustrated by the fact that collective action clauses were not used to address debt within individual countries. Rather, the matter of debt was regulated by bankruptcy law. With regard to special drawing rights, it was difficult to see any persuasive reason for opposition by the United States and India to the issuance proposed by IMF, especially given the ongoing discussions in Congress on a $2 trillion issuance. It was to be hoped that a new administration in the United States in 2021 would back such an issuance.