•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Recent events have sparked a renewed interest in the law and practice of war reparations. While today it is uncontroversial that unlawful uses of force, including acts of aggression, entail the obligation of the wrongdoing state to make reparations, including by way of compensation, the precise extent of this obligation remains subject to debate. One particularly contentious aspect is whether, and to what extent, states that violate the prohibition on the use of force are obligated to pay compensation not only for harm caused to civilians and civilian objects, but also for damage caused to the armed forces of the defending state. In this article, we demonstrate that states that engage in unlawful uses of force are indeed obligated to provide compensation for this type of harm. However, we also explain how issues of causation, evidentiary standards, and the financial capacity of the wrongdoing state may in some cases limit the scope of such claims. Moreover, we demonstrate that compensating combatants is not only doctrinally sound but also normatively desirable as it highlights their role as the core victims of unlawful wars. Finally, we elaborate on some of the consequences of this conclusion, including in relation to the individualization of reparation claims, the moral and legal equality of combatants, as well as the normative principles underlying international humanitarian law (“IHL”).

Share

COinS