特惠金和赔款:错失良机?

Steven van de Put
{"title":"特惠金和赔款:错失良机?","authors":"Steven van de Put","doi":"10.1163/18781527-bja10060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nStates have been increasingly engaging in a practice of ex gratia payments during armed conflict as a way to win ‘hearts and minds’ or mitigate local animosity from combat operations that cause civilian loss or damage. These represent voluntary payments for damages which are not the result of a violation of the laws of war. This practice provides a contrast to reparations, which are the result of a legal obligation to remedy breaches of law. This article critically assesses how these two concepts interact with each other. Analysing the current practice, this work argues that ex gratia payments can represent another barrier for victims seeking redress. Crucial here is that these payments are seen as both an explicit and implicit waiver of any future claims. This ignores the potential for synergy between the two concepts on both moral and operational grounds. To better facilitate this potential synergy, this article takes inspiration from some of the human rights jurisprudence surrounding reparations programs and considers ex gratia payments in light of their standards instead of accepting them as a blanket waiver. This would align these payments better with both the operational and moral imperatives underlying these payments.","PeriodicalId":41905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ex Gratia Payments and Reparations: A Missed Opportunity?\",\"authors\":\"Steven van de Put\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18781527-bja10060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nStates have been increasingly engaging in a practice of ex gratia payments during armed conflict as a way to win ‘hearts and minds’ or mitigate local animosity from combat operations that cause civilian loss or damage. These represent voluntary payments for damages which are not the result of a violation of the laws of war. This practice provides a contrast to reparations, which are the result of a legal obligation to remedy breaches of law. This article critically assesses how these two concepts interact with each other. Analysing the current practice, this work argues that ex gratia payments can represent another barrier for victims seeking redress. Crucial here is that these payments are seen as both an explicit and implicit waiver of any future claims. This ignores the potential for synergy between the two concepts on both moral and operational grounds. To better facilitate this potential synergy, this article takes inspiration from some of the human rights jurisprudence surrounding reparations programs and considers ex gratia payments in light of their standards instead of accepting them as a blanket waiver. This would align these payments better with both the operational and moral imperatives underlying these payments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

各国在武装冲突期间越来越多地采取特惠付款的做法,作为赢得“民心”或减轻对造成平民损失或损害的战斗行动的当地敌意的一种方式。这是对损害赔偿的自愿支付,不是违反战争法的结果。这种做法与赔偿形成对比,赔偿是补救违法行为的法律义务的结果。本文批判性地评估了这两个概念如何相互作用。通过分析目前的做法,这项工作认为,特惠金可能是受害者寻求补救的另一个障碍。这里的关键是,这些付款被视为对任何未来索赔的明示和隐含的放弃。这忽略了这两个概念在道德和操作方面的协同作用。为了更好地促进这种潜在的协同作用,本文从有关赔偿方案的一些人权判例中获得灵感,并根据其标准考虑特惠付款,而不是将其视为一揽子豁免。这将使这些支付更好地符合这些支付背后的操作和道德要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ex Gratia Payments and Reparations: A Missed Opportunity?
States have been increasingly engaging in a practice of ex gratia payments during armed conflict as a way to win ‘hearts and minds’ or mitigate local animosity from combat operations that cause civilian loss or damage. These represent voluntary payments for damages which are not the result of a violation of the laws of war. This practice provides a contrast to reparations, which are the result of a legal obligation to remedy breaches of law. This article critically assesses how these two concepts interact with each other. Analysing the current practice, this work argues that ex gratia payments can represent another barrier for victims seeking redress. Crucial here is that these payments are seen as both an explicit and implicit waiver of any future claims. This ignores the potential for synergy between the two concepts on both moral and operational grounds. To better facilitate this potential synergy, this article takes inspiration from some of the human rights jurisprudence surrounding reparations programs and considers ex gratia payments in light of their standards instead of accepting them as a blanket waiver. This would align these payments better with both the operational and moral imperatives underlying these payments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies is a peer reviewed journal aimed at promoting the rule of law in humanitarian emergency situations and, in particular, the protection and assistance afforded to persons in the event of armed conflicts and natural disasters in all phases and facets under international law. The Journal welcomes submissions in the areas of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international refugee law and international law relating to disaster response. In addition, other areas of law can be identified including, but not limited to the norms regulating the prevention of humanitarian emergency situations, the law concerning internally displaced persons, arms control and disarmament law, legal issues relating to human security, and the implementation and enforcement of humanitarian norms. The Journal´s objective is to further the understanding of these legal areas in their own right as well as in their interplay. The Journal encourages writing beyond the theoretical level taking into account the practical implications from the perspective of those who are or may be affected by humanitarian emergency situations. The Journal aims at and seeks the perspective of academics, government and organisation officials, military lawyers, practitioners working in the humanitarian (legal) field, as well as students and other individuals interested therein.
期刊最新文献
Lessons from the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: The Plight of Diaspora Fighters in Levées en Masse Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War Environmental Protections During Armed Conflict as Supportive Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes Safeguarding the Vulnerable: A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Detainees in Contemporary Non-International Armed Conflicts and Counterterrorism Operations Demokratia: Will the Greek Ideal Work in Greece’s Favour to Return the Parthenon Marbles under International Law?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1