Victims Compensation

Solution

   The United Nations should incorporate a Victims Compensation division that should be considered as standard procedure whenever a military conflict occurs between nations especially when civilians are harmed by the offending nation(s).

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

   The amount awarded should be substantial enough to nullify the act of aggression and to discourage nations from behaving in such a manner any further (e.g., $25 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 for the corrective measure (e.g., Gaza to reimburse Israel for rocket attacks into civilian areas).

   It is important to impose such measures early in the process to prevent further hostility between the nations. If the offending nation refuses to pay then additional measures may take place such as sanctions, trade embargoes, assets/banks frozen, etc., including quarantining the nation for extreme cases (no trade, no travel, not even food/medicine).

   An example that may qualify for victims compensation that is 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 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. Doing so would have saved many lives in Afghanistan and may have prevented the eventual conquest by the Taliban.

   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 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.

   Victims compensation may also apply for non-military situations as well, as with China's theft of intellectual property. If the international community had awarded compensation for this type of criminal behavior, China may have been discouraged from continuing in such a manner and not cause further harm to the situation.

   The United Nations 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.