top of page
Victims Compensation
Issue
Nations have been victimized by others for a number of unjustified reasons. Most of the time, conflicts have arisen due to heated tempers rather than the use of rational thought by their leaders. The consequences of a military conflict occurring takes a terrible toll on the population, and should be prevented whenever possible.
Solution
The international community should impose a procedure for awarding victims compensation to act as a deterrent for future conflicts.
For example, the latest Israel-Hamas conflict may have been prevented if the international community had granted victims compensation for their previous conflicts. In other words, every time that the Palestinians had caused harm upon Israel (and vice versa), the offending nation would be required to pay for their damages in return.
Whether due to repeated invasion attempts, the kidnapping of citizens, or the thousands of munitions that were fired into each other's region, the offender should be required to pay for all the damages that they had inflicted upon their neighbor. 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 act of aggression.
The monetary award imposed by the international community should be substantial enough to discourage nations from harming 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 should be enacted 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. That way, the offender will learn that it is not worth being the aggressor since they will not benefit in any way if they were forced to pay more in damages than what they had inflicted upon the other. It is important to impose such measures early in the ordeal to prevent further hostility between the nations.
Another example for victims compensation is Pakistan's situation that had allowed the Taliban to invade Afghanistan repeatedly over the years. If the international community had gotten involved early 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 over the years.
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 compensation that was substantial enough to discourage them from causing further harm. The earlier that the international community would have acted, the more lives that would have been saved by the measure.
Victims compensation may also be awarded for non-military situations as well. As with China's theft of intellectual property. If the international community had awarded compensation to the victims of their crimes, China may have been discouraged from behaving in such a manner rather than continue for years.
This new 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 for 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 victims compensation effort may also be used locally by nations to resolve domestic issues as well.
One example is how trade tariffs may have caused unnecessary economic harm upon local businesses and individuals in that they had to pay more for goods and services without justification. Since tariffs weren't truly necessary for the nation to impose upon its population (c.f. World Trade for a better alternative), voters need to decide if government officials should be held personally accountable to pay for the harm that was caused by their unnecessary policy.
Another situation that may qualify for victims compensation is how government officials may have unnecessarily endangered citizens' lives with their policy involving illegal immigration (and their resultant criminal activity). Voters will need to decide if the officials responsible for the situation should be held personally accountable for failing to protect their citizens.
Another situation that may qualify for victims compensation would be to hold officials responsible for unnecessarily endangering their military personnel in unwarranted military conflicts (e.g., Russia into Ukraine, America into Iraq, etc.). If the use of the military was deemed to be unjustified by a nation's voters, any service members that were harmed during the ordeal would receive victims compensation by the government officials. Otherwise, such careless behavior of a nation's leaders and their blatant disregard for human life, including of their own military, may continue in the future.
Awarding victims compensation for domestic situations like these among others would only apply for past conduct for the most part. The reason why is that when a nation adopts a pure democracy, the leader of the country becomes just a figurehead that can only propose measures for the nation to vote upon. They are no longer directly responsible for the policy itself since the entire country decides whether the measure becomes official or not for the nation.
An example of awarding compensation for domestic issues after the establishment of a pure democracy is one that doesn't directly involve government officials. As what happened in America during the 2007-2009 Great Recession. The reason why this period is relevant is due to the seriousness in that the number of people that were out of work was nearly the same as during an economic depression (which occurs once in a hundred years or so), and was preventable.
At that time, employers laid off workers by the millions that was unjustified since companies had the monetary funds available to make their payroll. In that, businesses didn't experience a financial difficulty at the time, and the layoffs were frivolous in nature.
If America decides to move forward with the worker's civil rights bill that requires financial proof for companies before they may conduct layoffs (c.f. Worker's Civil Rights), doing so also establishes the legal basis for awarding compensation for laid off workers who were unfairly dismissed from their jobs. Especially, if they were not rehired by their former employer, which is another violation of a worker's civil rights.
For handling this particular situation, the Labor Department would process the claims for victims compensation in order to simplify the procedure rather than going through the courts. To file a claim, laid off workers would send their financial documents (e.g., tax returns, W-2 forms, etc.) that proves their loss of income during that time, or since then if the worker never recovered due to long-term unemployment (i.e. entitled to over a decade's worth of compensation, up to age 72). If financial documents are not available then Social Security records would be referenced that show a worker's annual earnings for the given year(s).
The Labor Dept. would then contact their former employer, who if unable to prove financial hardship at the time of the layoff, would be responsible for paying their former employee their annual salary as compensation. Or difference in salary if the worker got another job (or highest salary if multiple jobs). Compensation should be awarded until the former employee received a higher or equivalent salary in a job of similar nature, with cost of living adjustments being applied for the long-term unemployed.
The statute of limitations for situations like these may be overridden by the nation's vote in a pure democracy. Long-standing domestic issues that negatively affected the lives of workers who were laid off during a major event are entitled to compensation. Especially, when it was due to an artificially-induced economic depression that was entirely avoidable by businesses who had the financial resources to pay their workers.
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 treated unfairly by their former employers.
bottom of page