# International Experience of Damages Compensation in Armed Conflicts: Lessons for Ukraine

## TL;DR

This paper explores international compensation mechanisms for victims of armed conflict, offering lessons to help Ukraine design an effective reparations system.

## Contribution

The paper provides a comparative analysis of compensation models from Bosnia, Kosovo, and the UN to inform Ukraine’s reparations framework.

## Key findings

- Specialised institutions are needed to handle complex conflict-related claims efficiently.
- Transparent procedures and direct individual claims are essential for legitimacy and accessibility.
- Adapting global models to Ukraine’s context can help avoid enforcement challenges and duplication.

## Abstract

Access to justice, enshrined as a fundamental human right in international conventions, includes the right to a fair trial and to just compensation. This dimension of justice is particularly crucial in contexts of armed conflict, where victims of military aggression require effective reparation mechanisms. Historically, both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have been created to address mass claims, from restitution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Kuwait to processes in post-authoritarian or post-communist states. Such mechanisms highlight the need for specialised institutions, as ordinary courts are often unable to manage the volume and complexity of conflict-related claims. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, reparations have become central to legal and political debate.

This study employed an empirical approach, combining systematic data collection with comparative legal analysis. Sources included UN and Council of Europe acts, reports by international organisations (CoE, OSCE), NGO publications, and scholarly works. Three compensation models were examined in depth: the UN Compensation Commission, Kosovo property claims mechanisms, and Bosnia’s Commission for Real Property Claims. These were selected for their effectiveness, European relevance, and addressed harms. Comparative analysis evaluated their procedures, accessibility, and recognition of harm, contrasted with Ukraine’s emerging compensation mechanism.

The study highlights lessons from the UNCC, Kosovo, and Bosnia, focusing on mandates, procedures, accessibility, and types of harm recognised. It identifies best practices and challenges, offering comparative insights for designing Ukraine’s future compensation system.

International commissions share key features: defined jurisdiction, politically sensitive and lengthy processes, and reliance on transparent procedures to ensure legitimacy. For Ukraine, enabling direct individual claims is essential to uphold the right to reparation. Yet enforcement challenges and risks of duplicative proceedings remain. Adapting global experience to Ukraine’s context is crucial for developing an effective and trusted compensation mechanism.