A/HRC/41/51 advantage of opportunities arising from debt waivers granted by creditor countries, particularly European, or blocking worldwide the assets of the countries concerned and threatening them with bankruptcy”.48 54. In 2014 and 2015, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the member States of the Group of 77 and China recognized that the speculative activities of vulture funds posed a risk to all future debt-restructuring processes, for both developing and developed countries. They further stressed the importance of not allowing vulture funds to paralyse the debtrestructuring efforts of developing countries and affirmed that those funds should not supersede the right of a State to protect its people under international law (A/69/423, annex, para. 29, and A/70/410, annex, para. 33). 55. In 2018, the European Parliament passed a resolution in which it acknowledged that “vulture funds targeting distressed debtors and interfering with the debt-restructuring process should not receive legal or judicial support for their pernicious activities”. It also called on European Union member States to adopt, on the initiative of the European Commission, a regulation based on the Belgian law on combating debt speculation by vulture funds.49 VII. Towards a multilateral framework on debt restructuring 56. Responding to the increasing demand for international action, in September 2014 the General Assembly adopted its landmark resolution 68/304 entitled “Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes”, in which it called for a legal framework aimed at facilitating the orderly restructuring of sovereign debts and capable of deterring creditors from disruptive litigation. The Assembly expressly emphasized that the activities of vulture funds undermined the purpose of debt restructuring processes by forcing indebted countries to divert many of their resources to handling such litigation. One year later, the Assembly endorsed a set of principles that should guide the establishment of an international orderly sovereign debt-restructuring workout.50 57. The principle of sustainability entails promoting sustained and inclusive economic growth and development that leads to stable debt situations. That means that debt sustainability is only achieved when debt service does not result in violations of human rights and human dignity, and does not prevent the attainment of international development goals (see A/HRC/40/57, paras. 12.2 and 12.3). 58. It is in that context that in its resolution 27/30, the Human Rights Council called upon States to curtail the activities of vulture funds by implementing national frameworks and expressly recognized the negative impact the repayment of debts under predatory conditions caused to the capacity of a State to fulfil its human rights obligations. Some months before, 100 civil society organizations worldwide had supported the establishment of an international mechanism for the restructuring of sovereign debt “based on the obligation of States to respect, protect and enforce human rights, both in their territory and extraterritorially”.51 59. In view of the efforts and the progress made over the past years, it is difficult to understand the reasons behind the current political deadlock in the process aimed at setting up a debt-workout institution, building on General Assembly resolution 69/319 on Basic Principles on Sovereign Debt Restructuring Processes. In April 2018, the European Parliament insisted on the need to set up an international debt-workout mechanism capable 48 49 50 51 12 See recommendation 1870 (2009), available from http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/XrefXML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17748&lang=en. See resolution of 17 April 2018 on enhancing developing countries’ debt sustainability (2016/2241(INI)), paras. 32 and 37. See resolution 69/319. See “The conflict between Argentina, the vulture funds and the judicial branch of the United States exposes a global problem that impacts on human rights”.