Reparations for Indigenous People: International and Comparative Perspectives

Published in concomitance with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this volume brings together a group of renowned legal experts and activists from different parts of the world who, from international and comparative perspectives, investigate the right of indigenous peoples to reparation for breaches of their individual and collective rights. The first part of the book is devoted to general aspects of this important matter, providing a comprehensive assessment of the relevant international legal framework and including overviews of the topic of reparations for human rights violations, the status of indigenous peoples in international law, and the vision of reparations as conceived by the communities concerned. The second part embraces a comprehensive investigation of the relevant practice at the international, regional, and national level, examining the best practices of reparations according to the ideologies and expectations of indigenous peoples and offering a comparative perspective on the ways in which the right of these peoples to redress for the injuries suffered is realized worldwide. The global picture painted by these contributions provides a view of the status of relevant international law that is synthesized in the two final chapters of the book, which include a concrete example of how a judicial claim for reparation is to be structured and prescribes the best practices and strategies to be adopted in order to maximize the opportunities for indigenous peoples to obtain effective redress. As a whole, this volume offers a comprehensive vision of its subject matter in international and comparative law, with a practical approach aimed at supporting legal academics, administrators, and practitioners in improving the avenues and modalities of reparations for indigenous peoples

The Ohlin-Keynes Debate on the German Interwar Reparations Revisited

This paper analyzes the debate between Ohlin and Keynes on the question as to whether Germany was able to make the payments specified in the Dawes Plan. Keynes argued that Germany was able to collect the money but unable to transfer it to the victors because there existed an insurmountable “transfer problem”. Ohlin replied that such a “transfer problem” did not exist and, therefore, that Germany was able to make the payments stipulated by the Dawes Committee. This paper analyzes the positions of the two contenders and argues that the problems are not correctly delimited and that the theoretical bases of the contenders show serious deficiencies. It also brings to light some interesting theoretical and practical paradoxes that neither Keynes nor Ohlin dealt with.

Beyond Attribution: Responsibility of Armed Non-State Actors for Reparations in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda

This chapter explores the responsibility of armed non-state actors for reparations to victims. Traditionally international law has focused on the responsibility of the state, and more recently the responsibility of convicted individuals before the International Criminal Court, to provide reparations for international crimes. Yet despite the prevalence of internal armed conflict over the past few decades, there responsibility of armed groups for reparations has been neglected in international law. Although there is a tentative emerging basis for armed groups to provide reparations under international law, such developments have not yet crystallized into hard law. However, when considering the more substantive practice of states in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda, a greater effort can be discerned in ensuring that such organizations are responsible for reparations. This paper finds that not only can armed non-state actors be held collectively responsible for reparations, but due to the growing number of internal armed conflict they can play an important role in ensuring the effectiveness of reparations in remedying victims’ harm. Yet, finding armed groups responsible for reparations is no panacea for accountability, due to the nature of armed conflicts, responsibility may not be distinct, but overlapping and joint, and such groups may face difficulties in meeting their obligations, thus requiring a holistic approach and subsidiary role for the state.

Reparations for ‘guilty victims’: Navigating Complex Identities of Victim-Perpetrators in Reparation Mechanisms

Reparations are often declared victim-centred, but in transitional societies defining who is a victim and eligible for reparations can be a politically charged and controversial process. Added to this, the messy reality of conflict means that perpetrators and victims do not always fall in two separate categories. Instead in certain circumstances perpetrators can be victimised and victims can be responsible for victimising others. This article explores complex victims, who are responsible for victimising others, but have themselves been unlawfully victimised. Looking in particular at the 1993 Shankill bombing in Northern Ireland, as well as Colombia and Peru, such complex victims are often seen as ‘guilty’ or ‘bad’ victims undeserving of reparations. This article argues that complex victims need to be included in reparation mechanisms to ensure accountability and to prevent their exclusion becoming a source of victimisation and future violence. It considers alternative avenues of human rights courts, development aid, services and community reparations to navigate complex identities of victim-perpetrators. In concluding the author finds that complex identities can be accommodated in transitional societies reparation programmes through nuanced rules of eligibility and forms of reparations.

A Pension for Injured Victims of the Troubles: Reparations or Reifying Victim Hierarchy?

Reparations have been often used victim-centred measures to redress both private harm and gross violations of human rights. However, with the increasing occurrence of internal armed conflict and political violence, identities of victims and perpetrators in protracted conflicts can become blurred for some individuals. In countries like Peru and Northern Ireland that have suffered protracted violence, victimhood has been contested around which individuals are seen as innocent and deserving to exclude any members of non-state armed groups from claiming reparations. This article explores the issue of a proposed bill on a pension for injured victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It identifies that there is no consistent state practice or human rights jurisprudence in this area, but instead offers a more complex approach through four models that can grapple with the seeming diametrically opposed victimhood and responsibility, by including victimised-perpetrators in reparations programmes such as that proposed for a pension of seriously injured victims in Northern Ireland.

Alternatives to Reparations in International Investment Arbitration– A Debate Between Theory and Practice

An analysis of the alternatives of compensation in relation to international investment disputes is relevant, because a pecuniary award is not always the appropriate remedy to solve disputes arising between investors and States. This is the case because States may be increasingly interested in opting for a different type of compensation. Furthermore, it is still not clear whether arbitral tribunals have recognised alternative types of awarding damages in respect of international investments disputes. This analysis comprises two principal components, the first, is to identify whether or not the tribunals may render an award that not only demands the payment of a sum of money but also considers some other means of compensation. The second, centres on how compliance with these non-pecuniary awards may be demanded. Our approach to these two principal components will always revolve around the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the State, bearing in mind that the execution of an arbitral award, which obliges the State to refrain from or to perform an act in its territory, relies precisely on the sovereignty of the State to execute it. 

Queer reparations: dialogue and the queer past of schooling

This article reflects on historical homophobia within educational practice and administration as an effort to consider how we might promote dialogue around the queer past of schooling. Along the way, it provides some discussion of the significance of archival knowledge in helping us to develop an understanding of the past while also providing resources for making sense of the contemporary moment. To develop my argument, I illustrate some examples of historical homophobia, through a brief discussion of some education administration practices in Australia, I then move on to briefly consider some of the implications of historical homophobia, and its effects in relation to educational research, practice and administration today. In the final section of the paper, I discuss some of the ways in which we might address the queer past of education through a cultural politics of queer reparation.