Refugee Compensation:
Selected Cases and
Source Materials

Back

2. Bibliography

In this article, "forced Resettlement" is defined as: "involuntary transfers of individuals or groups within the jurisdiction of a state whether inside its own territory or into or out of occupied territory." This article contains an historical survey and a discussion of the legal issues involved in armed conflict, peace time and special cases such as development refugees and homelands.

This article does not specifically address the issue of compensation. However, it is a foundational work in the study of population transfers and is therefore frequently cited. The article discusses the need for positive law to address population transfers and seeks to provide this. The author outlines six types of transfers and addresses each in turn: 1) "deportation of enemy civilians from occupied territory during war" (during both international and civil war); 2) "deportation of a minority pursuant to a peace treaty;" 3) "expulsion of a vanquished people after deballatio and subjugation without a peace treaty;" 4) "expulsion of a national minority in time of peace;" 5) "’option’ agreements and population exchange treaties;" and 6) "involuntary transfer of a national minority within the territory of a sovereign state, without crossing borders into third states." In his conclusion, citing the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the author maintains that victims of expulsion "in any context" have both a right of return and compensation.

This article contains a discussion of evolution of legal rules, conventions and other legal developments. It also addresses the right of return, including references to the Palestinian case.

This article attempts to provide a comprehensive legal perspective on "population transfer" which incorporates both removal and settlements. As such, it offers a legal overview of population transfers, including: as a crime against humanity, under humanitarian law, and during colonization. This article also provides an overview of the implications of population transfers, including: freedom of movement, self-determination, and genocide.

This article addresses mass expulsion from a legal perspective. It includes a discussion of the following: "The Prohibition of Mass Expulsion of Aliens;" "Specific Aspects of Mass Expulsion of Migrant Workers;" "Mass Expulsion of Persons Enjoying Special Protection;" "Indirect Mass Expulsion;" "Mass Expulsion and War;" "Mass Expulsion by an Occupant;" and "Some Aspects of Emergency Relief, Remedies, Enforcement and Preventative Mechanisms." The book also includes appendixes which contain various relevant documents, a 48 point summary of the book’s findings, and a list of expulsions world-wide since 1945. The book also contains a brief (2 page) discussion of compensation in which the author maintains that compensation is second only to restitution. Furthermore, the author maintains, returnees should not only be compensated for lost or damaged property but also for physical suffering. Compensation should also be paid to countries of asylum. Aliens expelled should also be compensated for both property and non-wealth losses, although the author states that these compensation claims should be filed by their state of nationality. The author discusses International Law Association (ILA) Declarations on Mass Expulsion and Compensation to Refugees.

In this article, the author addresses the kind and degree of responsibility borne by the country of origin to the countries of asylum and the international community. It details four refugee-generating conditions. Of the four refugee-generating conditions (violations of civil rights, civil war, external aggression, and natural disasters), only one can be attributable to countries of origin: "flagrant violations of human rights resulting in the persecution of people for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." Yet, this act incurs state responsibility only when the refugee-generating act which is attributable to the state constitutes a breach of international responsibility. The state of origin, in violating the sovereignty of the state of asylum (due to the non-refoulment or non-forcible return principle), commits an internationally wrongful act (delict). The author also notes that in cases of "serious breach (es)..of international obligations" (e.g. genocide), it is considered that the state has committed an international crime. In both scenarios, the state is internationally responsible. The author also discusses the consequences of this breach. In the case of international delicts, the country of asylum has a right to compensation covering the costs of accommodating refugees. To enforce this, the country of asylum may impose economic sanctions. In the case of international crimes, compensation becomes an matter for the international community, with the UN imposing and directing sanctions.

This Declaration represents the culmination of the work of the Committee on the "Legal Status of Refugees" on the issue of compensation. The committee submitted its first draft declaration in 1988 and the second draft was "approved in principle" in 1990. This document contains a preamble, the text of the declaration, a detailed commentary on the declaration, and a report of the working session which reveals the committee’s discussion of the declaration.

This article discusses "The Declaration of Principles of International Law on Compensation to Refugees" which was adopted by the International Law Association (ILA) at the 1992 Conference. The article contains a brief history of the development of the Declaration and an overview of the central aspects of the declaration (Compensation as Disincentive for Generating Refugees, Consequences of Nonpayment of Compensation, The Genocide Convention, Equal Treatment of Nationals and Aliens, Compensation and Rapprochement, and Compensation to Oppressed Minorities). The article concludes with the text of the Declaration.

This article seeks to remedy under-consideration of compensation to both refugees and countries of asylum. Preventive in emphasis, this article argues that the principle of state responsibility should be applied to countries of origin. In his discussion, the author extensively cites relevant UN resolutions and reports, including on the Palestinian issue. In outlining the legal basis of the right of refugees to compensation, the author briefly examines municipal law and extensively evaluates international law (including Human Rights Law and the UN Charter). The author also maintains that customary law supports the right to refugee compensation, arguing that UNGA resolutions, if oft restated and unanimous, (such as Resolution 194) are binding and should be considered customary law. The author specifies the "scope and content" of the exercise of the right to compensation, making two claims. First, that compensation for refugees exercising right of return should be considered and second that there is legal basis for compensation of non-property losses.

Recognizing the importance of implementation in such an endeavor, the author also outlines possible implementation mechanisms. The author proposes three types of enforcement incentives to be developed by the UN system. First is the withholding of development assistance (but not disaster relief) from UN and UN related agencies by order of UNGA resolutions. He notes that this could be mirrored in bilateral assistance. Second is the ability of the UNHCR, in its capacity as guardian, to file a claim in the ICJ against countries of origin on behalf of refugees. Third, citing the precedent of the CCP, the author states that the UNGA could, by resolution, create a permanent mechanism for the processing of refugee compensation claims.

The author also develops an argument regarding the legal basis for compensation for asylum countries, focusing on mass expulsion. The author maintains that in the generation of refugee flows, the country of origin undermines the right of countries to "exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things within it," since refoulment is prohibited in international law. Furthermore, the author maintains that mass expulsion, in transforming the relationship between the citizen and state, contravenes the international principle of nationality and the obligations it entails.

In addition, because municipal and international law obliges states to provide "minimum services" to those within its territory, a "quasi-contractual" relationship is established in which the country of origin must at least partially reimburse asylum countries for costs incurred. The author also maintains that indirect responsibility rests with a state which may not necessarily be a country of origin, but which generates refugee flows though committing "an internationally wrongful act." The author defines "internationally wrongful act" the basis of work done by the International Law Commission.

Like compensation for refugees, the author also proposes implementation methods. The first stage is the lodging of protest. Then, the offended state must seek the pacific settlement of disputes under the mechanisms of Chapter VI of the UN Charter. Following the exhaustion of avenues of pacific settlement, reprisal is available. This may include sanctions, both bilateral and multilateral. Noting the potential inability of asylum countries to obtain reimbursement through pacific settlement of disputes and citing UNWRA, the author maintains that the UN system could seek such reimbursement and, in turn, assume costs.

The article in its comprehensive examination of compensation to refugees and countries of asylum, provides an essential foundation and, as such, is frequently cited in works on the subject.

The third part of this book addresses expulsion in international law. It contains a discussion of: "the function of expulsion in international law," "the justification for expulsion," "the manner and form of expulsion," "the impression of treaty obligations upon the general power of expulsion," and a "summary of the limits on the power of expulsion in general international law." The book includes discussions of several cases.

This chapter focuses on compensation for victims of gross human rights violations. Although the author argues that the conclusions drawn in the article bear relevance to other cases where compensation is due (armed conflict and occupation), the discussion has less relevance to the specific issue of refugee rights.

This chapter contains a discussion of the procedures and legality of several population transfers, including: Bulgaria-Greece, Greece-Turkey, Hitlerite transfers, post WWII expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe, India-Pakistan, Palestine, and a brief overview of population transfers in Africa.

This 850-page text is perhaps the most basic and detailed study of early population transfers. It focuses on two historically significant population transfers, the Greco-Bulgarian and Greco-Turkish population exchanges. It also includes a discussion of the Turko-Bulgarian population exchange. The book contains an exceptionally detailed discussion of the management of the property issue in both the Greco-Bulgarian and Greco-Turkish transfers. It carefully documents the procedures utilized and the problems encountered in appraising a variety of property types. The book also contains an extended discussion of the historical development of negotiations and an analysis of the relevant agreements. There are also chapters which detail the financing of the claims commissions in each case, including budgets. The work includes several tables of finance data and the entire texts of all relevant agreements for each case.

Based mostly on secondary sources, this book contains brief discussions of the following cases of population movements and property questions: Turkish-Bulgarian, Greco-Turkish, and the Greco-Bulgarian exchange.

Based mostly on secondary sources, this book contains brief (p.56-57) discussion of the Greco-Bulgarian and Greco-Turkish population exchanges and property questions.

The book contains some discussion of property matters, but the information contained therein is generally superseded by information in his later work, The Refugee in the World. The book also contains several appendixes, including a table titled "Transfers of Minorities in Europe 1939-1945" which details the nationality and number of migrants in addition to the date of transfer and the place of emigration and immigration.

Published in 1949, this book contains an overview of several cases: India-Pakistan (but published prior to the New Delhi Accord, it is of limited value), Armenians, Assyrians, and a chapter entitled "The Case of Arab-Jewish Transfer of Population" in which the author argues for a transfer of Palestinians to Iraq where their population base would be supported by improved agricultural techniques. This chapter does not include information on compensation.

This book is a follow-up to the earlier work which examined population transfers in Europe from 1939-1945. This comparative work contains a general discussion of population transfers and their impact, including a discussion of the difficulties in assessing and resolving property interests. He argues that this aspect is "probably the most difficult and thankless task associated with these operations" (p. 26) and advances a proposal for the management of this task. He advocates an advance inter-governmental agreement on the property evaluation in which would be paid by the government of departure to the country of migration which would then pay to the individuals. He adds that due to limited resources, this compensation would likely need to be supplemented by international loans. (p. 27) This work specifically examines the cases of: the Czech-Soviet exchange, the Czech-German transfer, the Slovak-Hungarian exchange, the Polish-Soviet exchange, the Polish-German transfer, and the Bulgarian-Turkish transfer. He discusses the property provisions (or lack thereof) in each case.

This book contains brief but useful discussions of the property issue in the Turkey-Bulgaria, India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey, Turkey-Romania, and Bulgaria-Romania population transfers. It also includes chapters on Palestinians and Israelis, focusing on integration, but not addressing property.

This article is a two case comparison which discusses reparations and restitution to Jewish victims of Nazism and the problem of compensation to Palestinian refugees. The study’s comparative basis is two-fold. First, it examines the first case to identify lessons for the second. Second, it examines the impact German restitution to Jews had on the evolution of Israeli policy on Palestinian compensation. The author notes two particular aspects of the German restitution process which positively affected the outcome: the creation of Jewish voluntary organizations to file and process claims and the use of collective restitution which facilitated the claim of heirless assets. The author concludes that the creation of a representative umbrella organization is essential. He also maintains that a global (or lump sum settlement) is preferable in that it allows for infrastructure development rather than "individual consumption." Furthermore, he maintains that enforcement (in the form of sanctions) is necessary as well.

Chapter Two (Articles VII-XVI) creates the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees, also called the "Property Commission," the "Commission" and the "Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees." It contains several key aspects:

Article IX (Composition). This article specifies that the commission will consist of four members from the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (two with a three year term and two with a four year term), two members from Republika Srpska (one with a three year term and one with a four year term), and three members appointed by the European Court of Human Rights, one of whom serves as chair.

Article X (Facilities, Staff and Expenses) The "professionally competent" staff will be "headed" by an Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Commission. The salary of the staff will be "determined jointly" by the commission and "borne equally by the parties."

Article XI (Mandate) "The Commission shall receive and decide any claims for real property in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the property has not voluntarily been sold or otherwise transferred since April 1, 1992, and where the claimant does not now enjoy possession of that property. Claims may be for return of the property or for just compensation in lieu of return."

Article XII (Proceedings before the Commission)

• The Commission will determine the lawful owner of the property. To facilitate this, the commission will have access to all property records.
• The Commission will return all property to the lawful owners. If compensation is sought in lieu of return, compensation will be awarded by the Commission; the amount is determined by a majority.
• The Commission does not recognize property transactions occurring "under duress, in exchange for exit permits or documents, or that was otherwise in connection with ethnic cleansing." A lease agreement is also acceptable alternative to return.
• The Commission will determine fixed rates for property based on pre-April 1, 1992 rates.
• The Commission has the power to "transfer or assign title, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of property."
• When the claimant does not return to their property, the Commission will compensate them with either a "monetary grant or a compensation bond." The Commission also encourages the international community to build housing in Bosnia which can be purchased by these bonds.
• All Commission decisions are final.
• Non-cooperation of a party does not prevent Commission decisions.

Article XIII (Use of Vacant Property)

• Refugees can be housed in vacant property pending determination of the Commission.

Article XIV (Refugees and Displaced Persons Fund)

• A fund will be created in the central bank of Bosnia which will be replenished by sale and lease of real property, the payments of the parties, or contributions of governments, or the international community.
• The issuance of compensation bonds creates a future liability on the fund.

Article XV (Rules and Regulations)

• The Commission will creates rule and regulations necessary for its functioning.

Article XVI (Transfer)

• Unless otherwise determined by the parties, the responsibilities of the commission will transfer to the parties in five years.

The introduction to the document states: "On the basis of Article XV of Annex 7 of the General Framework Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the meeting held on March 4 1999, the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees adopted the following rules and regulations." These regulations outline: the "General Provisions (Section I);" the procedure for the "Submission and Reception of Claims (Section II);" the "Procedure for Collection and Verification of Evidence Relevant for Deciding Claims for Return of Real Property(Section III);" the procedure for "Deciding Claims for Return of Real Property" (including provisions on "evidence," and the "decision making procedure") (Section IV);" the "Special Procedure for Deciding Claims for Return of Real Property, Confirming an Ownership Right to Real Property, and Acquiring the Right to Just Compensation in Lieu of Return to Property (Section V);" the provisions on "Legal Effectiveness, Delivery and Publication of Individual Decisions of Return of Real Property (Section VI);" the procedure for the "Correction of Errors in Decisions (Section VII);" the "Reconsideration of Decisions (Section VIII)," the provisions for "Decision Enforcement (Section IX);" and the "Transitional and Closing Provisions (Section X)."

This article discusses the work of the Commission for Real Property Claims in Bosnia. It focuses primarily on return of property to refugees rather than on compensation, concluding, "To date, the Property Commission, a dispute resolution body created in Annex 7, has been ineffective. Very few refugees have returned home." Despite its focus on the return of property, it contains a valuable overview of the CRPC. It outlines the creation, structure and recent practice of the CRPC. The discussion of the work of the CRPC includes an evaluation of the procedures and decision rate of the CRPC. This might be useful in anticipating difficulties arising from a similar commission in the Palestinian case. Concerning compensation, it identifies the problems of property valuation and fundraising, problems also arising in the Palestinian case. Due to the inability of the Commission to obtain requisite donor contributions for its functioning, the author briefly recommends the use of rents for property under its jurisdiction for compensation costs. The article also contains a discussion of the role of NATO and other foreign policy considerations which are of limited value in examining refugee compensation.

This study commissioned by the CRPC and UNHCR is based on information obtained from claim forms, a survey of 1500 claimants, and focus groups. It contains information on pre-and post- conflict population structures, current patterns of return, impediments to return (including a discussion of abandoned property legislation), and proposals to overcome these impediments to return. It also includes a discussion of factors affecting return/relocation preferences. The author maintains that relocation is an important component of a "durable solution" and, as such, the work outlines the elements which would facilitate relocation, some of which bear relevance to the Palestinian case (e. g. reconstruction assistance, housing credits). This study also includes a methodological annex.

Outlines how to make property claims

Outlines the application of Article 4 of the Law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments

In this article, the author analyzes the implications of the December 18, 1996 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. In this case, the court affirmed a Greek Cypriot’s ownership rights over property which had been nationalized by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The author provides background to the case, an overview of the case, and a discussion of the basis of the ruling and an analysis of the implications of the case.

This article examines the Greco-Turkish population transfer as a "test-case" of exchange of populations as a mechanism to resolve the problem of "non-dominant ethnic groups" in inter-state relations. The article provides: a political background on the problem, an overview of the Lausanne conference, an analysis of the Lausanne agreement and the Ankara Accord, and an assessment of the impact of the agreements on Greco-Turkish relations. The authors conclude that "this brutally realistic act" "became the basis both for the reorientation of foreign policy and for the establishment of close relations of friendship and cooperation."

This book examines in detail the Greco-Turkish exchange of populations. It also includes a brief discussion of prior agreements such as the Turkish-Bulgarian exchange of 1913 and the Greco-Bulgarian exchange. The book provides a particularly close examination of the historical origin and evolution of the Greco-Turkish exchange beginning in 1827 until the 1930 Ankara Convention. It examines the negotiations and the parties’ positions and motivations.

The book gives particular attention to the decisions Greece made in accepting the provisions of the transfer (particularly the 1930 Convention) in order to enable Greco-Turkish rapprochement. The author states, in reference to the fact that Greece paid a lump sum of £425,000 in the agreement, "The country considered this provision of the 1930 Convention as completely unjust but it wanted to put an end to the atmosphere of tension and mistrust that had prevailed for almost a decade." (p. 118)

Several pages of an annex to the book ("The Refugee Problem Today") also addresses the subsequent management of the property which was exchanged by the states as stipulated in the 1930 Convention. The section indicates that the property was not initially managed in accordance with the needs of the refugees. The book also includes a section on Greek refugee settlement, including the work of the refugee commission and the role of international assistance. In addition, the book includes information on the ethnological, economic and socio-political impact of the refugees upon Greece. Also included is a number of tables and the 1923 Convention.

This article begins with an explicit comparison of the Greco-Turkish and Palestinian cases. The author states that the article addresses the question of why the Greek state was willing to acquiesce to measures that the "Arabs" have not. The author identifies four differences between the "Greek situation" (of the early 1920’s) and the "Arab situation." First, "there was only one Greek state to act in behalf of the refugees." Second, because of the need for Turkey to negotiate with the Entente powers, Greece was afforded the additional leverage of an international conference, rather than a "unilateral" negotiation with Turkey. Third, Greece’s increasing military might moderated Turkish demands. Fourth, the domestic conditions prevailing in Greece required a speedy conclusion of negotiations. The author also notes the concessions which the Greek government obtained: maintenance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, exemption from transfer of the Greek population from Istanbul, membership in the international straits commission, and recognition of Greek sovereignty over several Aegean islands.

The author asserts his central "hypothesis:" that Venizelos wanted the population exchange for both domestic and international reasons yet wanted appear to only reluctantly accept it. Furthermore, his reasons for supporting the exchange derived from the needs of the Greek state rather than the needs of the refugees. In particular, these were "the national security and internal development of the Greek state." (p. 144) He argues that the Greek state sought to retreat from indefensible areas; Venizelos sought the preclusion of further Greek irredentism which "drained" the state; and furthermore that Venizelos aimed to the homogenize the Greek state. The author also argues that Venizelos "used the refugee problem to secure foreign economic assistance for what become a major economic programme." (p. 150) He discusses how the Greek state "invoked" the refugee problem successfully to obtain highly concessional international loans. He also adds that this environment of "upheaval" enabled a radical land reform program.

The author seeks to explain the relative quietism of the Greek refugees to the agreement. He identifies five reasons. First, there was only one state upon which to "bring pressure" which eliminated the option of "exploiting" "rivalry." Second, the population was dispersed and intermingled with the local populations. Third, "international arrangements" were implemented quickly. Fourth, the agreement was reached by a "political darling" with sufficient credentials. Fifth, although in actuality negating the right of return, the agreement, "(gave) a faint glimmer of hope that they might someday return to their native lands" by including a provision for an authorized return which might have been possible someday. He also adds that the original agreement provided for full compensation and the Greek government started dispersing some compensation immediately.

Furthermore, the organization of politics (including districting) prevented the refugee population from gaining real political clout. In addition, in discussing the other features of the refugee settlement (such as characteristics of the era and the fact that they returned to a perceived "heart" of their civilization), he adds, "in short they (the Greek refugees) seem not to have felt as intense a sense of outrage or injustice as the Palestinians have." (p. 159)

The article contains also concise and useful overviews of the features of the 1923 Convention, the Greco-Bulgarian exchange of 1919, and the process preceding and eventual outcome of the 1930 Ankara Convention.

Several chapters of this frequently cited work address the management of property in the compulsory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. This work briefly discusses population exchange precedents (such as Turkey-Bulgaria and Greece-Bulgaria). It provides a comprehensive view of the diplomatic development and implementation of the Lausanne and subsequent agreements. This comprehensive discussion includes an examination of the impact of inter-state relations and national policies. The book also includes a chapter on the treatment of the minorities who were exempted from the transfer. The appendix includes the "Treaty of Lausanne" and the accompanying "Convention on the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations."

This article examines the management of property rights questions in the case of the mass return of refugees from a legal perspective. It examines central and local government policies in the management of competing claims. The article contains three parts. The first part "considers the origins of the Guatemalan land crisis" and also discusses three agreements which "address the issue of RDP (returning displaced persons) land access, analyzing their implications for national land policy." The second part "considers the legal sources of support for the right to land." The final part "applies this legal analysis to a case currently before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights."

This agreement signed in New Delhi on April 8, 1950 by Jawaharlal Nehru and Laiquat Ali Khan is commonly called both the "New Delhi Accord" and the "Liaquat-Nehru Pact." This agreement addresses minority issues stemming from the disturbances and migrations in East Bengal, West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura (and in certain cases Bihal). With regard to possessions, the agreement determined that migrants could take all immovable properties and up to 150 rupees for adults and 75 rupees for children. The agreement provided that migrants could leave jewelry and cash which could then be transferred. In cases of return by December 31, 1950, immovable property would be returned except in "exceptional cases" in which cases migrant would be compensated. In cases of non-return, the immovable property would continue to be owned by the migrant and placed in the "trusteeship" of a committee "consisting of the minority and presided over by a representative of Government." This trust was "empowered to recover rent." The provincial and state governments were to enact supporting legislation and also "provide all possible assistance for the discharge of the Committee’s functions." The agreement also includes clauses addressing the protection of minorites. According to section D of the agreement, the minority protection clauses (section C) extend to the entirety of both countries. However, the property administration clauses appear to possibly be specifically limited in scope (East Bengal, West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura, and in certain cases Bihal). Section G specifically states, "Except where modified by this agreement, the inter-Dominion Agreement of December 1948 shall remain in force."

Chapter 13, "The Great Holocaust and the Rehabilitation of Refugees," contains a discussion of the management of migrant properties during partition. The author maintains that the exchange of populations was seen as a "temporary phenomenon." He states that during a Joint Defense Council meeting, attended by Lord Mountbatten, on August 29, 1947, "it was agreed that each Dominion should appoint a custodian of evacuee property and that there should be close liaison between the two custodians." Assumption of Custodial possession of evacuee property did not include "assets of joint stock companies and bank deposits." However, the author adds that after time "the refugee’s title on property he had left in the other Dominion became thin and shadowy and finally disappeared." The author notes that the evacuees had a right to compensation "out of property left behind by the other side" (presumably awarded by the country of immigration). Yet, the amount of compensation would determined by "the amount of property left...number of refugees...the state of the economy and general policy conditions." The author also documents the development of the two agreements which address the question of evacuee property: the Inter-Dominion Agreement and the Liaquat-Nehru Pact.

This article seeks to examine the evolution and development of the management of the issue of evacuee property in both India and Pakistan. The author contends that the issue "provides in either country a vast millstone, hung around the neck of the administration and exercising the most adverse consequences in many directions; and this is quite apart from its damaging effect upon Indo-Pakistan relations." (97). The article documents the development of inter-state negotiations and the generation of domestic legislation. The article also includes an extensive discussion of the respective positions of the governments, with a particular emphasis on explaining Pakistan’s position. The author explains that while the Indian government favors a "government to government" resolution of the property question, the Pakistani government prefers adherence to the Inter-Dominion agreement of Karachi and argues that the slowness of the claims process owes to Indian non-cooperation. The article also includes anecdotal references to application of provisions in the agreements. Also, although published after the 1955 Movable Property Agreement, it is not discussed.

This 167 page chronology includes coverage of events relating to the management of evacuee property, including both inter-state and domestic developments. The last mention of evacuee property matters is on p. 104 (August 13, 1980).

From insert/subtitle: "Being Latest Commentary on West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 and Rules Framed thereafter, West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, Conduct of Appeals and Revisions Rules, Instructions About Redemption and Restitution of Lands of Local Muslims Mortgaged with non-Muslim Evacuees, etc., etc."

This article was an expanded revision and update of the article which appeared in Pacific Affairs in December 1951, cited below. It was later republished in a 1999 publication, 50 Years of Indo-Pak Relations: Vol. 1 Partition of India, Indo-Pak Wars and the UNO, annotated below.

This is a reprint of the article, completed on May 13, 1952, which appeared in India Quarterly. As exhibited by its republication in this 1999 three volume compilation, this chapter provides the most comprehensive discussion of the property question resulting from partition. This article not only utilizes both Indian and Pakistani governmental documents, but has also incorporated official Indian and Pakistani government comments on an earlier draft of the article. In describing the aim and coverage of his article, Schechtman writes, "(t)he following pages represent an attempt to outline the problems involved and to recapitulate the tortuous and instructive process of their gradual settlement." (p. 31) The article tracks the origins and development of intergovernmental and domestic arrangements for the management of evacuee property. The organization of the article is chronological and details the sometimes winding trajectory of negotiations.

In addition to its comprehensive and detailed review of the evacuee property problem, the article also discusses the respective positions of the governments on the matter of evacuee property. Whereas India prefers a "government-to-government" solution, Pakistan prefers process based on individual claims and individualized compensation. Furthermore, Schechtman offers his opinion on the relative merit of the two positions. Schechtman comments extensively and comparatively,

"The experience gained from population transfers in Europe during the preceding three decades would seem on the whole to support the Indian position. Wherever it was attempted to leave the disposal of abandoned property to individual transferees, or to compensate them individually, on the basis of evaluation of their particular property by a mixed commission representing the country of departure and the country of reception, the effort invariably failed. The procedure for such evaluation proved exceedingly long, highly complicated, and controversial. It involved an extremely intricate problem of appraisal, and a painful adjustment between the currencies and standards of value of the respective countries. In the final analysis, it was unavoidably unsatisfactory to all the interested parties. Even less satisfactory were attempts to arrange for direct payment of compensation to individual property owners by the country of departure. The were both inadequate and belated The transferees themselves were the foremost sufferers under the inherent shortcomings of the system, which were frequently accentuated by the lack if goodwill on the part of the authorities of the country of departure." (p38, italics his)

This article was later expanded, revised, updated, and published in a 1953 issue of India Quarterly.

This book, cited in works on the question of evacuee property in India and Pakistan, contains a brief (two page) section on the management of evacuee property, which the author calls "the most controversial and delicate question which has been the subject of negotiations between the Dominions." (p. 162) This section briefly discusses some of the provisions of the January 1949 Inter-Dominion Accord. However, published prior to the 1950 Liaquat-Nehru Pact, the work lacks complete coverage.

This article discusses the awards made by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, "analyzing them in three broad areas: First, the types of conduct that engage state responsibility under the rubric of expropriation; second, the standard of compensation that must be awarded to the owner of expropriated property; and third, the various valuation methods used to quantify damages." (p. 639-640) On the basis of an analysis of the cases ruled on by the tribunal, the author draws the following conclusions:

• Expropriation is deemed to have "occurred whenever actions attributable to the government amount to an unreasonable interference with the owners use or control of the property…Losses caused by revolutionary unrest not directly traceable to such a governmental action have not generally been held to constitute compensable expropriations." (669)
• "Full compensation" is based on "fair market value including reasonably predictable future profits in the case of ongoing ventures" (669)
• Valuation issues remain unsettled but he argues that "adequate account of general economic conditions" and consideration of "loss of business prospects due to revolutionary turmoil or changes in governmental polices not forming the basis of expropriations" must be included. (669)

This article, based on an address delivered to the J.B. Moore Society of International Law at the University of Virginia Law School in the Fall of 1991 by a former member of the Tribunal, provides a brief, yet useful, comparative analysis of both the Iran-US Claims Tribunal and the United Nations Claims Commission. The author compares the two institutions in terms of the respective advantages and disadvantages of each.

"The arbitral proceedings before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal involving claims of nationals are governed by the legal system of the Netherlands. This conclusion does not sit easily with the prevailing tendency to think that proceedings of a tribunal formed by a treaty to resolve a crisis between two countries are an interstate process not subject to interference by a municipal legal order. The prevailing tendency exists because it rests upon a categorical distinction between public and private international dispute resolutions that in the past reflected practice quite faithfully. This distinction, however, no longer adequately describes the variations in international disputes resolutions. Two particularly important dimensions to international dispute resolution in which innovation has occurred are the means of reviewing the validity of the result and the means of gaining enforcement of the result. The emergence of specific machinery such as the Iran-United States. Claims Tribunal and ICSID, and the increasing incidence of transnational litigation involving states and international commercial arbitration with state parties - all concurrent with an arguably decreasing need to rely on diplomatic protection - indicate that the various private, state and interstate mechanisms for the resolution of international disputes should not be viewed as operating in isolation, but rather as competing with, and evolving in response to one another. This evolving system is not the result of a master plan; rather, it is the Darwinian consequence of numerous separate demands." (annotation from: International Political Science Abstracts)

This article examines the UNCC in comparative historical context, discussing the evolution of the structure and processes of the Commission. He argues that the UNCC exemplifies a quasi-adjudicatory post-war claims tribunal. He also maintains that claims tribunals often act as institutions of reparations rather than third party arbiters. This article includes an evaluation of the structure and process of the UNCC and its use as a role model for future claims tribunals. Also, the article engages the debate over Lump Sum Agreements vs. Claims Tribunals.

This article, written soon after the establishment of the commission, provides a brief yet comprehensive overview of the commission, including: history, structure, financing, jurisdiction, parameters of Iraqi responsibility, eligibility criteria (including stateless individuals such as Palestinians), procedures (including two categories of claims-direct individual payments of less than $100,000 and others), and a delineation of types of claims the commission covers ("serious personal injury and mental pain and anguish, business claims, embargo losses, contract losses, and losses involving tangible property").

Rovine, Arthur. "An Iraqi Claims Process: Where and How?" Part 1 American Review of International Arbitration (1991): 411; Part 2, 2 American Review of International Arbitration (1991):102.

Like the earlier work (annotated below), this text contains a discussion of the right to compensation and a specific proposal for compensation. The right to compensation rests upon three principles: state responsibility for injury, requirement of a remedy, and that this remedy should return those involved to their former position. Yet, according to the author, there are problems in applying these principles to the Palestinian case. First, it is difficult to determine state responsibility. Refugee compensation is based on responsibility of a state to not transform its citizens into refugees. However, Palestinians were not citizens of the country which generated the refugee flow. Second, the right to compensation rests on a determination of causality which is politically difficult to determine in the Palestinian case. Despite these difficulties, the author offers a proposal for compensation.

Her compensation mechanism must be examined in conjunction with her repatriation proposals. Those Palestinians repatriating will receive low interest loans rather than grants. Those not repatriating will file claims with a Compensation Tribunal which will have arbiters from non-Middle Eastern countries. Different categories of claims will be awarded based on a classification system determined by quantity and nature of property. Payments will be made in the form of cash, reintegration allowance, or titles to property. Payment will be made from a compensation fund to which contributions will be made from Western industrialized countries, Arab states, Israel, international institutions, and philanthropists. Compensation will be provided not merely on an individual (or household) basis but also on a communal basis. Given the importance of refugee rehabilitation and overall development, payment of individual claims should be limited to allow for greater communal compensation. After a period of approximately two years following the agreement, no more claims will generally be accepted.

In this 114 page article, the authors address the Palestinian refugee problem in the international legal framework of population transfer. As such, the article includes a discussion of: "Dimensions of the Problem," "The International Law of Population Movement," "Recent Instances of Transfer and Return," "The Likelihood of Voluntary Migration," and "Components of a Multi or Bilateral Treaty." The authors specifically address compensation in both principle (international law and population movement) and in the form of a proposal. On the first, the authors draw upon the work of Luke T. Lee on compensation to refugees (annotated above). However, they note that Lee’s argument is limited in application to the Palestinian refugee problem in two respects: it rests on the attribution of state responsibility which is exceedingly contentious in this case and the fact that Palestinian refugees do not fall clearly in the international legal definition of refugee. Despite this, they maintain, based on resolution 194, that Palestinians are entitled to compensation. This includes both returning and non-returning refugees, although they add that since compensation is a form of remedy, those returning would be entitled to less compensation (excluding compensation for property losses).

The authors also propose a mechanism for compensation. Based on a treaty which would determine the valuation of property and/or non-property losses and which would also set guidelines for decisions, a mixed commission (with non-Middle Eastern third party participation) would be established. This commission would pay compensation out of a fund to which Western Industrialized Countries, Arab States, and Israel would contribute based on ability to pay (determined by GDP and budgetary peace dividend). The Israeli contribution would not rest on an admission of responsibility and Arab contribution could not be conditional. With regard to Jewish settler property, the settlers could take all movable property and either sell the immovable property or receive expropriation compensation from the Palestinian state.

In order to determine the legal basis of potential private property claims, this article discusses "laws on enemy property, the laws of belligerent occupation, the laws on reparations, and the laws that define and protect the individual’s right to property." More specifically, the article contains an overview of the treatment of enemy property in occupied territories by Jordan, Egypt, and most importantly, Israel since both 1948 and 1967. The authors concluded, based on their discussion of international law, that 1948 refugees ("absentees" whose property was expropriated for a public purpose) will be eligible primarily for compensation rather than return of property. On the other hand, the authors maintain, 1967 refugees who return to WB/G may be able to reclaim property.

The authors also make proposals for the resolution of property claims based on a discussion of the Declaration of Principles and historical precedents of population transfers, lump sum agreements, and claims tribunals. The authors maintain that Palestinian compensation should be resolved through a lump sum agreement which provides for "adequate" rather than full compensation. The authors maintain that lump sum agreements are faster, more cost effective and do not require an allocation of responsibility. The value of the lump sum agreement should be based not only on an intergovernmental assessment of value of property, but also and more importantly, based on the rehabilitation needs of Palestinian refugees and the resources of funding parties. The funds of the lump sum agreement, the authors argue, should be dispersed by an institution established multilaterally by concerned parties.

In this paper, the author maintains that compensation is linked to the question of return. Yet, he argues that compensation must also be considered on its own because it involves the host countries and the international community. The author also states that the issue of Arab country compensation to Jewish refugees should be de-linked from Israeli compensation to Palestinians.

Arguing that the resolution of the compensation issue may be driven less by losses incurred by Palestinians than by the availability of regional and international resources, the author seeks to determine the possible amounts of resources available. In doing so, the author examines the potential available funds from Israel, UNWRA winddown, and the international donor community. He offers "best" ($12.9 billion) and "worst" ($1.2 billion) case scenarios. Both these scenarios fall short of "the minimum level required." The author also explores questions regarding compensation including "Israeli taboos against compensation," international donor support mobilization, and various compensation mechanisms.

According to the author, due to colonialism and Israeli occupation, the PA faces several difficulties in documenting land ownership: establishing accurate titles to the land, registering and selling of land, and avoiding forgery. This short article includes not only a discussion of the obstacles the PA faces, but also measures the PA is implementing to solve them.

In this study, the author outlines: the bases of Israeli opposition to compensation, the advantages to Israel of compensation, and a proposal for compensation. On the first, the author states that Israel is opposed to compensation because it entails an admission of responsibility for the refugee problem. Israel also takes the position that, in absorbing Jews from Arab countries, Israel no longer owes the Palestinians or Arab asylum countries. On the second, the author maintains that, in paying compensation, Israel would benefit from an ensuing normalization of relations and could also make compensation conditional on the purchase of Israeli goods. As a means of compensation, the author proposes first a "moral compensation" which would be a statement (perhaps as a UNGA resolution which Israel would adopt) recognizing Palestinian suffering. The second form of compensation would be financial, an "ex-gratis" limited contribution to an international compensation fund and circumscribed participation in rehabilitation efforts.

This frequently cited work provides a comprehensive review of the question of Palestinian Refugee compensation. In addition to a discussion of the "seeds of conflict" and "the land problem," the book includes an examination of management of the property question following the mandate period. This encompasses an evaluation of Israeli management, an evaluation of the work of the Palestine Conciliation Commission and an examination of United Nations documents. Importantly, this book also includes a 75 page section "An Economic Assessment of Total Palestinian Losses in 1948 ." This section, written by Dr. Atif Kubursi, provides a detailed examination and valuation of Palestinian property losses. The book also includes several valuable appendixes of primary documents and tables of valuation data. Kubursi values the total "Arab real estate losses in Palestine" at £P 528.9 million. He also notes that this "modest figure" is over six times the UN refugee office calculations which are based on the same data. Thus, the "UN estimate of Palestinian real estate losses in 1948 is thus shamelessly unrepresentative." (p.181)

This paper addresses compensation in a cursory and broad fashion, mentioning UN resolutions and other international documents, providing some discussion of property holdings and valuation, and proposing a compensation fund to be financed by industrialized nations and Gulf states and monitored by the UN.

In addition to providing a profile of Palestinian refugees and proposals for rehabilitation, this draft paper includes a discussion of compensation which addresses the question of the content of compensation (property vs. non-property losses), discusses the work of the CCP and alternative estimates of Palestinian property, provides an overview of valuation problems, and includes a proposal for a UN based compensation enforcement mechanism (along the lines proposed by Lee).

Outlining the foundations of what he calls "attainable justice" (or "justice within the realm of the possible") as opposed to absolute justice, the author offers a five point proposal, which addresses compensation (not merely compensation for property losses but also reparation for non-property losses):

• Israel must symbolically recognize the "hurt" it inflicted on the Palestinian people.
• Israel must recognize in principle the right of return even if it is implemented in a limited fashion such as family reunification.
• There must be compensation for property losses (estimated at 92-147 billion 1984 dollars) or a per capita system which is based more on reparations, where each Palestinian receives $20,000. ($40 billion). He also accepts the possibility that compensation to Palestinians and Jews from Arab countries may be linked.
• There must be a right to return to a Palestinian state (limited by absorptive capacity), including passport holding.
• The Palestinians of Jordan and Lebanon warrant additional considerations.

As part of a discussion of rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees, the author outlines three bases for compensation. The first is past losses and as such the article includes a survey of past property estimates. The second is current needs (where need is defined as raising the socio-economic level to the host population). The third is a gap between the anticipated demands of resettled Palestinian population and the available resources of host countries. In order to address the second and third basis, the author provides a profile of Palestinian refugees, forecasts on population, housing, and employment, and proposals for future research to determine needs.

With a view to contributing to an anticipated compensation debate, the author offers a valuation of Palestinian property losses, specifically Arab owned agricultural land within the green line of post 1948 Israel. This valuation is based on agricultural land and property (arguing that over 2/3rds of Palestinians lived on agricultural holdings). Additionally, instead of relying on market prices or tax rates (which deflated values) as previous studies have done, the author examines agricultural output. In the study, agricultural output is measured by actual agricultural productivity in 1944/1945 (adjusted for market and crop fluctuations and for the quantity and quality of Jewish land purchases). The author concludes that this 4.845 million dunums of land is valued at $2.2-2.6 billion (1993 dollars) or, including 3% interest, $8.1-9.9 billion (1993 dollars). This, he argues, indicates the degree of CCP undervaluation of Palestinian agricultural holdings and might provide an indication of the accuracy of other CCP valuations. He also maintains that the original Israeli position on extended payments for compensation was based on a different ratio of potential Arab claims to Israeli GDP; even given current reevaluations, the percent has declined from 150% to 4%. The article also includes an appendix on agricultural output of Arab farms.

This article examines the work of the CCP on the release of blocked Arab bank accounts in Israel and maintains that at the time of the writing of the article, this was the only "tangible result of its work" to date. The article discusses the negotiations, the procedure of release, the respective political positions of the parties, and the political ramifications of release. The author maintains that the degree of difficulty encountered in achieving this relatively small task is an inauspicious indicator for future aspects of compensation.

This article contains a brief discussion of the Absentee Property Law and the Custodian of Absentee Property. This discussion includes an examination of: the evolution of the institution, definition of "absentee," management of the institution, and the domestic politics surrounding the work of the institution. It also contains brief discussion of early compensation proposals.

This publication contains a seven page section devoted to the topic of compensation in which the author maintains, making reference to resolution 194, that compensation is owed to both returnees and non-returnees. However, he also discusses the substantial problems encountered in identifying property and determining valuation. He outlines the work of the CCP on this, including their estimate of 120 million sterling pounds (1.85 billion 1990 dollars) and also mentions the alternative estimates of Sayegh and Hadawi. The text also includes a discussion of Israeli policy (including counter claims) and a brief overview of the Arab position. He concludes that the "most feasible solution" is "a trade-off based on the current de-facto situation," which is essentially a property swap between Israel and the Arab states in which very little cash compensation would be paid to Palestinian refugees.

This publication contains: a brief discussion of international law (including refugee compensation and compensation for expropriation), an historical overview (including Bernadotte’s proposals and the work of the CCP), an extended discussion of Israeli policy and domestic responses thereto, a brief discussion of the Arab positions, a discussion of the difficulties in identifying and valuing refugee property, and a comparison of various valuations of refugee property. The author concludes, echoing his position in the 1993 work discussed above, that compensation will likely be based on a property swap with some global payment but no individual claims.

In this article, the author maintains that the CCP has made progress in three areas: valuation, agreement of Israel to pay compensation outside of comprehensive settlement, and release of Arab bank accounts. The article contains a survey of "abandoned" land, discussion of the estimates of the CCP (100 million pounds sterling in immovable and 20 million in movable), discussion of the evolution and content of the Israeli position, the effect of Iraqi Jewish counter claims on the Israeli position, an overview of the Arab delegations’ positions, and an evaluation of the problems posed by individual payments. The author concludes by stating that efforts at compensation are stymied by political considerations.

The author begins with a distinction between compensation and reparations, with the later being a term which denotes a payment by a defeated party to a conflict. The author thus prefers to use "compensation" in the Palestinian case. The article contains a discussion of the problems encountered in identifying and assessing the value of refugee property and the work of the CCP in this regard. The author also examines the compensation issue in the peace process. He argues the following: the compensation issue will likely be one of the most controversial and lengthy matters to negotiate, the compensation issue is "inextricably linked" with resettlement and economic development, and that an international compensation pool to which many countries would contribute should be established.

This article addresses the issue of compensation and right of return in international law, focusing on 1948 refugees. It concludes that the "primary remedy ought to be compensation." As such, the article includes a general historical discussion and also examines UNGA resolutions (especially 194), the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention. The author contests the sole applicability of resolution 194 to 1948 refugees and the obligation of Israel to comply with resolution 194. The article contains a limited discussion of compensation. The author interprets Resolution 194 as supporting compensation in lieu of return. The author then concludes, based on a discussion of customary international law and general principles of international law, that compensation should be paid for private property in the original Arab and Jewish states and areas which Israel came to occupy. The author suggests that a "UN fund should be created to collect moneys from Israel and Arab countries, for their respective roles in generating both Arab and Jewish refugees." As indicated in the title, the article also addresses the right of return. The author maintains that the UN Human Rights Declaration (and other UNGA resolutions) do not constitute International Customary Law and are not binding. Therefore, he concludes, three is no legal obligation for Israel to implement right of return. However, the author favors a voluntary, yet limited, right of return.

Emphasizing the importance of state responsibility in legal considerations of refugee compensation, the author discusses the ILA Declaration of Principles of International Law on Compensation to Refugees" and includes the text of the Declaration. (paragraphs 322-3) The author also maintains that, in bilateral negotiations, the issue of state responsibility should be addressed, with some "symbolic recognition by Israel" of its role in the Palestinian refugee problem. (paragraphs 440 and 443). Noting the importance and also the complexity of the refugee issue, the author outlines the difficulties of determining values and proposes that the records of the CCP and UNWRA be used for making property determinations. The author also suggests that compensation will most likely take the form of rehabilitation aid rather than individual payments. Additionally, the author argues that the issue of compensation to Jewish refugees from Arab countries should be delinked from Palestinian refugee compensation and addressed either bilaterally or multilaterally. (paragraphs 446, 449-453, 455)

Eschewing what he considers a "false dichotomy" between compensation and return, the author maintains that compensation should be paid to both those exercising the right to return and those who do not. The author also approvingly engages the five point proposal offered by Khalidi (discussed above), adding three caveats. First, return and compensation should be de-linked. Second, compensation to Jews from Arab countries and Palestinians should be de-linked. Third, compensation should entail two forms: both collective and individual.

The author provides a survey of work on the subject (particularly Peretz, Radley, Hannum, Frelick, Mubanga-Chipoya, Artz, and Adelman), identifies central issues (number of claimants, means of calculations, means of administering, and sources of funding), and outlines the Israeli position (material claims, collective payment, and linkage of counter claims of Jews from Arab countries and Palestinian claims) and provides proposals for an Arab "maximal" position (material and non-material claims, individual payments, and occupation compensation) whose success rests on a coordinated strategy.

This article examines the compulsory transfer of the Polish-Soviet exchange. With some changes, this article was later published as a chapter in his later book, Post-War Population Transfers in Europe: 1945-1955. It contains a brief discussions of the property provisions in the 1944 and 1945 agreements.

This article examines the compulsory transfer of the Turkish Minority from Bulgaria beginning in 1925 and thus does not discuss the historic 1913 agreement. With some changes, this article was later published as a chapter in his later book, Post-War Population Transfers in Europe: 1945-1955. It contains a two page discussion of the property provisions in the 1925 agreement and their subsequent apparent violation.

This book contains a 60 page chapter on "the requirement of compensation", including a discussion of "municipal compensation provisions" and "compensation agreements" (agreements not resulting in payment, agreements resulting in payment-both compensation in kind and lump-sum, individual agreements, and agreements concluded by the UAE).

In an effort to reformulate the concept of just compensation in the context of culturally varied conceptions of property rights, the author provides a summary of Western (primarily Lockean) concepts of property rights which he contrasts with Indian conceptions of property rights which are based on the value of the land to the community. He concludes that the just compensation clause of the fifth amendment to the US constitution does not, in fact, provide for adequate protection of property rights for American Indians due to its reliance on market value and private property conceptions. Instead, the author proposes a "just" compensation based on international law. Using the International Labor Organization Convention and the UN Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the author proposes a compensation not monetary in nature, but in "comparative land."

This article addresses the various modes of compensation and restitution used in Indian land claims in the US, evaluating them for use in other cases of restitution world-wide, particularly post-socialist restitution in Eastern Europe. The article contains a lengthy discussion of the American acquisition of Indian lands (from original settlements to the more recent Alaskan acquisition). More importantly, the article provides an overview of judicial restitution, legislative restitution, and the work of the Claims Commission. Of most value, the author evaluates these restitution methods, concluding that future restitution efforts should take into account that the Claims Commission encountered problems of: adversarial dynamics which the structure of the commission dictated, conflict of interests, excessive administrative costs which diverted funds from Indian groups, and extreme legalism. Furthermore, the author added that per capita payments inhibited development and that the stockholding options used in Alaskan acquisition resulted in less than market value compensation as the neediest members sold options at below market rates.

This book evaluates all lump sum agreements concluded between 1945 and 1971, making that case that they should become a source of international law. The volume discusses: "jusiprudential perspective," "eligible claimants," "substantial bases of the claims," "compensable claims," and "compensation." The authors are currently compiling a follow-up volume which covers subsequent agreements and answers their critics.

This book contains a comprehensive list and text of all lump sum agreements reached between 1954 and 1971.

This article is a follow-up to the two volume Lump Sum Agreements and a precursor to a forthcoming volume on the same, covering the period from 1975-present. The article is a response to the debate of whether Lump Sum Agreements are a source of international law. Lump Sum Agreements (also called en-bloc or global settlements) are an alternative to Claims Commissions or espousal processes. These agreements are reached between two countries regarding compensation due to the citizens of one. Once an agreement on amount is reached, the claimant state (often through a National Commission) disperses the funds based on its determinations. In engaging this debate regarding sources of law, the article provides a broad yet concise overview of debates of the relative advantages and disadvantages of Lump Sum Agreements as opposed to Claims Commissions. Opponents of Lump Sum Agreements as a source of international law maintain that lump sum agreements: often offer compensation at less than value; are extra-judicial; driven by social, economic and political considerations rather than legal ones; impose an undue difficulty for developing countries to establish and administer National Commissions; and violate the right to prompt delivery of compensation due to the length required to reach an agreement. However, some critics concede, with particular relevance to the Palestinian case, that lump sum agreements may be most appropriate when two conditions are present: "war or war-like situations" or those where the reestablishment of "political ties" is particularly necessary.

Back / Notes

The PRRN/IDRC compensation workshop was funded by IDRC and the Canadian International Development Agency thrrough the Expert and Advisory Services Fund. PRRN is a project of the Interuniversity Consortium for Arab Studies (Montréal).

Last modified 10/8/99. Marc Lanteigne/ mlante@po-box.mcgill.ca , Rex Brynen/ info@prrn.org