Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Remarks on Compensation for War Damages under Jus ad Bellum

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia War and Its Aftermath in International Legal Perspective

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

The principle that a breach of the jus ad bellum entails responsibility is beyond doubt. However there have been only a few instances in the past in which States have been held liable for damages under public international law as a result of a war they started. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission has re-inserted the debate on reparations into a model based on the formal consent of the parties. While accepting the principle of reparations for violations of the jus ad bellum the Claims Commission remained well aware of the need to circumscribe such an obligation and it attempted to do that through the criterion of legal causation. That the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission does go in the direction of limiting the scope of liability is evident from the fact that its finding did not include a determination that Eritrea had waged an aggressive war or had occupied considerable parts of Ethiopia, nor did it consider that it could alter the international law rules defining the extent of compensable damages.

Vera Gowlland-Debbas (deceased) was at the time of writing Professor of Public International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum, Ethiopia’s Claims 1–8, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02.

  2. 2.

    See Koppe, Chap. 24.

  3. 3.

    Franck 2005, p. 427.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Zegveld 2003, d’Argent 2005.

  5. 5.

    Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Article 91 of the 1977 Geneva Additional Protocol I. This is possibly a rule which has entered customary international law.

  6. 6.

    See Koppe, Chap. 24.

  7. 7.

    See for example the Treaty of Peace with Japan, 8 September 1951; and the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Finland, 10 February 1947. See also Steinkamm 2000, p. 1356; Seidl-Hohenveldern 2000, p. 182.

  8. 8.

    See SC Res 353 (1974), 20 July 1974, S/RES/353; SC Res 360 (1974), 16 August 1974, S/RES/360; SC Res 367 (1975), 12 March 1975, S/RES/367; SC Res 541 (1983), 18 November 1983, S/RES/541; and SC Res 550 (1984), 11 May 1984, S/RES/550.

  9. 9.

    See for example, SC Res 508 (1982), 5 June 1982, S/RES/508; SC Res 509, 6 June 1982, S/RES/509; SC Res 517 (1982), 4 August 1982, S/RES/517; SC Res 520 (1982), 17 September 1982, SC/RES/520; and SC Res 542 (1983), 23 November 1983, SC/RES/542.

  10. 10.

    SC Res 502 (1982), 3 April 1982, S/RES/502. There are many other examples, such as the invasion of the Western Sahara by Morocco in 1975 and of East Timor by Indonesia in August 1976.

  11. 11.

    SC Res 687 (1991), 3 April 1991, S/RES/687, ‘(r)eaffirms that Iraq … is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait’.

  12. 12.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Rep 2004, p. 136, para 163.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., paras 115 and 117, 142.

  14. 14.

    ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep 2005, p. 168, para 259.

  15. 15.

    Lillich and Brower 1997, p. 31.

  16. 16.

    See Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 1) para 5. The Commission’s mandate was ‘to decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other, and by nationals (including both natural and juridical persons) of one party against the Government of the other party or entities owned or controlled by the other party that are (a) related to the conflict that was the subject of the Framework Agreement, the Modalities for its Implementation and the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and (b) result from violations of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international law’ (Article 5). For a critique of the Commission’s extension of its mandate, see Gray 2006, pp. 704–707 who states: ‘There is no suggestion in Article 5 that its jurisdiction would extend to an examination of responsibility for the start of the war’. See also Weeramantry, Chap. 12.

  17. 17.

    See the reference by Grotius to reparation and restitution in connection with unjust war. ‘The first step, which an aggressor ought to take, should be an offer of indemnity to the injured party, by the arbitration of some independent and disinterested state.’ Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Book II, Chapter I, XVIII, 1–2.

  18. 18.

    Fitzmaurice 1948, pp. 324–325.

  19. 19.

    Tomuschat 1999, p. 19. But see Gattini 2007, p. 711, who, criticising the Court’s decision to grant satisfaction to Bosnia in the form of a declaration in the judgment rather than financial compensation, suggests a more imaginative approach consisting in awarding some kind of reparation in the form of financing of some programmes for the benefit of the survivors or relatives of the victims of Srebrenica, or of various measures to honour the memory of the victims.

  20. 20.

    Security Council, Provisional verbatim record of the 2981st meeting, held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 3 April 1991, S/PV.2981, pp. 84–85 and 87–88, respectively. See also statements by France: ‘the necessary goal of the restoration of lasting peace in the Gulf should not involve measures that are unnecessarily punitive or vindictive against the Iraqi people’, ibid., p. 94; and China: ‘consideration should be given to the requirements of the people of Iraq and in particular their humanitarian needs, and to Iraq's payment capacity and the needs of the Iraqi economic reconstruction’, ibid., p. 97. See also Fox 1993, p. 272.

  21. 21.

    Grewe 2000, pp. 109–110.

  22. 22.

    Commentary to Article 42, Report of the ILC on the work of its 48th session (6 May–26 July 1996), A/51/10, p. 66, para 8(a).

  23. 23.

    See also Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Economic Loss throughout Ethiopia, Ethiopia’s Claim 7, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02, paras 1–2.

  24. 24.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Decision Number 7: Guidance Regarding Jus ad Bellum Liability, 27 July 2007, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 3.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 17.

  26. 26.

    Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 1) para 16.

  27. 27.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 24) paras 32–33; see also Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 1) para 19.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para 13.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para 11.

  30. 30.

    Including in the 2001 ILC Articles: see Commentaries to Articles 36 and 38 on compensation and interest, respectively.

  31. 31.

    Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the Egyptian Workers’ Claims (Jurisdiction), 12 October 1995, S/AC.26/1995/R.20/Rev.1, paras 214 and 218.

  32. 32.

    Mixed Claims Commission (United States and Germany), War Risk Insurance Premium Claims, Decision, 1 November 1923, UNRIAA VII:44–63, pp. 62–63. Under the Treaty between the United States and Germany restoring friendly relations (25 August 1921; Treaty of Berlin), Germany acknowledged liability for the claims of US nationals which covered, inter alia: ‘all losses, damages or injuries to them, including losses, damages or injuries to their property wherever situated, suffered directly or indirectly during the war period, caused by acts of Germany or her agents in the prosecution of the war…’ This was ‘but an application of the familiar rule of proximate cause - a rule of general application both in private and public law’.

  33. 33.

    Wassgren 1998, p. 487.

  34. 34.

    Graefrath 1995, p. 5.

  35. 35.

    See Boxer Indemnities Claims Commission, cited in Rovine and Hanessian 1995, p. 241.

  36. 36.

    Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Individual Claims for Serious Personal Injury or Death (Category ‘B’ claims), 26 May 1994, S/AC.26/1994/1, p. 28.

  37. 37.

    See Frigessi di Rattalma and Treves 1999, p. 25.

  38. 38.

    See for example the case of Naulilaa (Portugal v. Germany), Award, 30 June 1930, UNRIAA II:1035-1077. See also the views of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in connection with the damages caused by the economic embargo instituted by the United States: ‘the free exercise by a State of one of its options in the international sphere is an independent cause of the events which ensue therefrom, regardless of the acts of another State which may have triggered such a response (Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Queens Office Towers Associates v. Iran Air, Award, 15 April 1983, Award No. 37-172, CTR 2:247). Cited in Stern 1993, pp. 179–180.

  39. 39.

    Propositions and Conclusions on Compensation for Business Losses: Types of Damages and their Valuation. Decision No. 9 taken by the Governing Council of the UNCC, 6 March 1992, S/AC.26/1992/9, para 6. Regarding the question of multiple causes, it should be pointed out in contrast that in Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 21, the Commission concluded that in the case of damage resulting for which there was State responsibility and other causes for which there was not… the Commission has indicated the percentage of the loss, damage or injury concerned for which it believes the Respondent is legally responsible, based upon its best assessment of the evidence presented by both Parties.’ See also Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Central Front, Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22, 28 April 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 29.

  40. 40.

    Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of ‘F2’ Claims, 9 December 1999, S/AC.26/1999/23, paras 184-194.

  41. 41.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Civilians Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32, 17 December 2004, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 95.

  42. 42.

    Commentary to Article 8, Report of the ILC to the General Assembly on the work of its 45th session (3 May–23 July1993), A/48/10, p. 69, paras 7 and 9.

  43. 43.

    Arangio-Ruiz 1989, para 42 (emphasis added).

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 46.

  45. 45.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 24) paras 32–33.

References

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1989) Second Report on State Responsibility, UN Doc A/CN.4/425. ILC Yearbook, Vol. II, Part I

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Argent P (2005) Le droit de la responsabilité internationale complété? Examen des Principes fondamentaux et directives concernant le droit à un recours et à réparation des victimes de violations flagrantes du droit international des droits de l’homme et de violations graves du droit international humanitaire. AFDI 51:27–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice G G (1948) The Juridical Clauses of the Peace Treaties. Hague Recueil 73(II):255–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox H M (1993) Reparations and State Responsibility: Claims against Iraq arising out of the Invasion and Occupation of Kuwait. In: Rowe P J (ed) The Gulf War 1990-91 in International and English Law. Routledge, London, pp 261–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (2005) Non-Treaty Law-Making: When, Where and How? In: Wolfrum R, Röben V (eds) Developments of International Law in Treaty Making. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp 417–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigessi di Rattalma M, Treves T (eds) (1999) The United Nations Compensation Commission - A Handbook. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattini A (2007) Breach of the Obligation to Prevent and Reparation Thereof in the ICJ’s Genocide Judgment. EJIL 18:695–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Graefrath B (1995) Iraqi Reparations and the Security Council, ZaöRV 55:1–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2006) The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps its Boundaries: A Partial Award? EJIL 17:699–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe W (2000) Peace Treaties. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV, 2nd edn. North Holland, Amsterdam, p 102 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillich R B, Brower C N (1997) Opinion Regarding the Jurisdiction and Powers of the United Nations Compensation Commission. Virginia Journal of International Law 38:25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovine A W, Hanessian G (1995) Toward a Foreseeability Approach to Causation Questions at the United Nations Compensation Commission. In: Lillich R B (ed) The United Nations Compensation Commission, Thirteenth Sokol Colloquium. Transnational Publishers, Irvington, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl-Hohenveldern I (2000) Reparations after World War II. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV, 2nd edn. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 180–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkamm A A (2000) War Damages. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV, 2nd edn. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1354–1360

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern B (1993) Une procédure mi-politique, mi-juridictionnelle: le règlement des réparations dues par l’Irak à la suite de la crise du Golfe. In: Daudet Y (ed) Actualités des conflits internationaux. Pedone, Paris, pp 171–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (1999) Individual Reparation Claims in Instances of Grave Human Rights Violations: The Position under General International Law. In: Randelzhofer A, Tomuschat C (eds) State Responsibility and the Individual. Reparation in Instances of Grave Violations of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wassgren H (1998) The UN Compensation Commission: Lessons of Legitimacy, State Responsibility, and War Reparations. LJIL 11:473–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Zegveld L (2003) Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law. IRRC 85:497–526

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. c/o A. de Guttry, Sant’ Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy

    Vera Gowlland-Debbas

Authors
  1. Vera Gowlland-Debbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Gowlland-Debbas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto DIRPOLIS, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea de Guttry

  2. Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille, Lille, France

    Harry H. G. Post

  3. DILHPS, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Gabriella Venturini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gowlland-Debbas, V. (2021). Some Remarks on Compensation for War Damages under Jus ad Bellum. In: de Guttry, A., Post, H.H.G., Venturini, G. (eds) The 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia War and Its Aftermath in International Legal Perspective. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-438-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-439-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation