Victims Compensation

Solution

   The United Nations should consider victims compensation as a standard procedure whenever a military conflict occurs between nations, especially when civilians are intentionally harmed.

   For example, in the recent America-Iran conflict when the first oil tanker was damaged by Iran, the matter should have been automatically reviewed by the Victims Compensation division as standard procedure. Then the international community would be able to determine if the offending nation (Iran) should be required to pay the cost of another oil tanker, value of cargo, and any personnel that were injured/killed by their hostile act. The same if other civilian targets were harmed (e.g., hotel, airport, residential homes, natural resource facilities, etc.).

   Any nation may file a claim for victims compensation. The international community will determine fault and liability. The amount awarded should be substantial enough to nullify the act of aggression and to discourage further hostility (e.g., $10 million USD per person injured/killed plus any structural damages including the cost of the victim defending against such action). If monetary compensation is not feasible then property (land) forfeiture may suffice (e.g., Gaza to reimburse Israel for their rocket attacks into civilian areas).

   It is important to impose such corrective measures early in the process to prevent further hostility between the nations. If the offending nation refuses to pay then additional measures may be necessary to remedy the situation such as to accumulate interest, impose sanctions, trade embargoes, freeze assets, etc., and in extreme cases, even quarantining the nation (no trade, no travel, not even food/medicine).

   Another example that may qualify for victims compensation (that is be a bit different than the norm) may be Afghanistan's situation where they were repeatedly invaded by the Taliban from Pakistan. If the international community had gotten involved early in the process and imposed fines against the offender, which is Pakistan since they gave the Taliban safe harbor and were responsible for their behavior (similar to how a dog owner is responsible for damages that their dog inflicts), Pakistan may have been encouraged to move their military along the border to prevent such attacks. By doing so, they could have saved many lives and prevented further attacks from their region.

   Another situation that may qualify for victims compensation is if the offending nation had acted in an indirect or secretive manner, such as Iran's use of improvised explosives against American forces in Iraq. Once America showed the evidence of Iran's hidden involvement behind the scenes, the international community should have held Iran responsible and awarded monetary damages to discourage further hostility. The earlier that the international community had acted in the matter, the more lives that could have been saved by the measure.

   Nations may file a claim for victims compensation for non-military situations as well, as with China's theft of intellectual property. If the international community had awarded compensation for such criminal behavior, China may have been discouraged from continuing in such a manner thereafter.

   The victims compensation effort should not only be considered for future events, but also to rectify past occurrences as well (as those mentioned above among others). Otherwise, offending nations may not learn that their errant behavior will not be tolerated by the international community.