top of page
Victims Compensation
Issue
Countries have been victimized in the past for a number of unjustified reasons. Most of the time, conflicts have arisen due to heated tempers from political disagreements rather than the use of rational thought by their leaders.
Solution
The United Nations needs to establish a victims compensation policy to rectify nations that violate international law. For example, the United Nations Compensation Commission (1991-2022) was establish to rectify claims regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Which was a noble effort, however, the international community should continue in this manner for other conflicts as well. Not only award compensation for the harm that was done to the victims, but also be an effective deterrence for preventing future violations.
For example, the latest Israel-Hamas conflict may have been prevented if the international community had awarded victims compensation for their previous conflicts. In other words, every time that the Palestinians caused harm upon Israel, the Palestinians would be required to pay for such damages in return.
Regardless whether the damage was due to repeated invasion attempts, the kidnapping of Israeli citizens, or the thousands of rockets that were fired into Israel, the Palestinians should be required to pay for the harm that they caused upon their neighbor (and vice versa). If other nations got involved in the conflict (such as Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran that fired missiles into Israel), they likewise would be required to pay for the damages caused by their actions in order to nullify their acts of aggression.
The monetary award imposed by the international community should be substantial enough to discourage nations from harming others again (e.g., $25 million USD per person injured/killed plus any structural damages including the cost of the victimized nation defending against such action). If monetary compensation is not feasible, then property (land) forfeiture may suffice for the corrective measure.
This policy should be done prior to sanctions being imposed by the international community, and before military action is considered by the UN Security Council. Again, the award needs to be substantial enough to nullify the act of aggression and to serve as a means of deterrence against such future action.
Another example that warrants compensation is the situation that Pakistan had allowed the Taliban to invade Afghanistan repeatedly over the years. If the international community had gotten involved early in the process and imposed compensation 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 any damage that their dog inflicts), Pakistan may have moved their military along the border to prevent further attacks into Afghanistan, which would have saved many lives.
Another example is Iran's use of improvised explosive devices against American forces in Iraq. Once America showed the evidence of Iran's involvement, the international community should have held Iran responsible and awarded monetary compensation to America in order to discourage Iran from causing further harm upon them.
The compensation effort may also award damages for non-military situations as well. As with China's theft of intellectual property. If the international community had gotten involved and awarded damages to the various victims of their theft, China may have been discouraged from behaving in such a manner thereafter, which may have prevented further problems that may have arisen from their criminal activity.
This measure 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.
When this policy is combined with the establishment of a pure democracy within every nation (which removes the power and authority from egoistical leaders), both together will reduce the chances of unnecessary military conflicts from occurring in the world.
Other Considerations
The international victims compensation effort may also be used for nations to resolve domestic issues as well.
One example is how trade tariffs may have caused unnecessary harm upon local businesses and individuals to pay more for goods and services without their justification. Since tariffs weren't truly necessary for the nation to impose upon its population (c.f. World Trade for a better alternative), voters should decide if government officials should be held accountable for their actions and require them to personally pay the victims (businesses and individuals) for the harm that was caused by their unnecessary trade policy.
The same may be done for other political matters such as how an open border policy for immigration may have unnecessarily endangered citizens' lives by the actions of illegal immigrants. The government officials who were responsible for the open border policy (and sanctuary cities) should be held accountable for the harm that was caused by their policy that allowed illegal immigrants to enter the nation without the proper security procedures in place.
However, awarding victims compensation for domestic situations like the above only applies for past conduct. The reason why is that when a nation becomes a pure democracy, the leader of the country becomes just a figurehead that proposes measures for the nation to vote upon. They are no longer directly responsible for the policy itself since the entire nation determines whether the measure becomes officially ratified for the country.
An example of awarding victims compensation after a country establishes a pure democracy for themselves is one that doesn't directly involve government officials. Like what happened in America during the 2007-2009 Great Recession. Employers laid off workers by the millions that was unjustified since companies had plenty of cash on hand to make their payroll. In that, businesses didn't experience financial difficulty at the time and the layoffs were unnecessary.
If America decides to move forward with the proposed worker's civil rights bill (c.f. Worker's Civil Rights
requiring financial proof for layoffs), the measure will also establish the legal basis of awarding compensation for laid off workers who were unfairly dismissed from their jobs. Especially, if they were not rehired by their former employer to refill a similar position, which is another violation of a worker's civil rights.
For this particular situation, the Labor Department should process the claims for victims compensation rather than going through the courts. Laid off workers would send/upload their financial documents (e.g., tax returns, W-2 forms, etc.) that prove their loss of income during that time, or since then, if the worker never recovered due to long-term unemployment (i.e. entitled to nearly 18 yrs of compensation up to age 72).
The Labor Dept. would then contact their former employer, who if unable to prove financial hardship at the time of the layoff, is responsible for paying the full amount in salary to their former employee as compensation. Or the difference in salary if the claimer got another job (or highest salary if multiple jobs). Compensation should be granted up to when the former employee received a higher or equivalent salary (with cost of living adjustments being applied for the long-term unemployed). If financial documents are not available to file a claim then Social Security records would be referenced that prove a person's annual earnings.
The statute of limitations for situations like this, if any, may be overridden by the nation's vote in a pure democracy. In the end, if the nation decides to award compensation for previously laid off workers from businesses who failed to prove their financial hardship, remedial action would be provided for the victims who were unfairly treated by their former employers.
The above are just a few examples of how a nation may resolve, and hopefully prevent, such injustices from occurring both at a domestic and international level.
bottom of page