Victims Compensation

Solution

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

   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 United Nations Victims Compensation department as standard procedure. The international community would then be able to determine if the offending nation (Iran) should be required to pay the cost of another oil tanker, value of its 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 amount awarded by the international community 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., Palestinians in Gaza to reimburse Israel for their rocket attacks into residential areas).

   It is important for the international community to impose such measures early in the process to prevent such hostile acts against humanity. If the offending nation refuses to pay then additional corrective measures may be imposed such as sanctions, trade embargoes, freezing of assets, 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 may be a bit different than the norm, is 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 their border. By doing so, they could have saved many lives in Afghanistan 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 manner, such as Iran's use of improvised explosives against American forces in Iraq. Once America showed the evidence of Iran's involvement behind the scenes, the international community should have held Iran responsible and awarded monetary damages to discourage their further hostility. The earlier that the international community had acted in the matter, the more lives that could have been saved by the measure.

   Victims compensation may also apply for non-military situations as well, such as the damage from cyberattacks or theft of intellectual property. If the international community had awarded damages for such criminal conduct, the countries responsible may have been discouraged from continuing in such a manner thereafter.

   It is important that 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.