Reparations are broadly understood as compensation provided for an abuse or injury. The colloquial meaning of the term has changed substantially over the past century. In the early twentieth century, reparations generally referred to interstate transfers imposed as punitive measures following armed conflict (see war reparations), as determined by treaty and paid by the defeated party, such as the reparations required of Germany and its allies after World War I.
In contemporary usage, reparations may include war-related damages and restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition provided to victims of human rights violations by those responsible. The right of victims to obtain reparations, and the corresponding obligation of responsible parties to provide them, have been recognized in international law, including through instruments adopted by the United Nations. However, the recognition is limited to gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International humanitarian law.
In transitional justice, reparations are measures undertaken by a state to redress gross and systematic violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. Among transitional justice mechanisms, reparations are distinctive in that they directly address the circumstances and needs of the victims. When effectively designed, reparations acknowledge victims' suffering, provide redress, and may include compensation for harms endured.See Reparations may be both material and symbolic. Material reparations can include financial compensation, restitution of property, or access to services, while symbolic measures may take the form of public acknowledgments or official apologies for past violations, reflecting a state and societal commitment to address prior abuses. Proponents of reparations argue that to be effective, they must be employed alongside other transitional justice measures, including criminal prosecutions, truth-seeking initiatives, and institutional reforms.Cf. These complementary mechanisms help ensure that reparations do not amount to empty promises, temporary stopgap measures, or attempts to secure victims' silence through compensation alone.
Types The legal concept of reparation has two components: the victim's right to receive reparation for an injury and the responsible party's duty to provide redress. Individuals can seek reparations through judicial systems, or reparations can be provided through policies introduced by the state to address the concerns or needs of a wider populace. While the first strategy is instrumental in creating legal precedent, the second is considered more efficient.
The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law describes five formal categories of reparations: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.
Restitution – measures that serve to "restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations occurred". This may include restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return of one's place of residence, restoration of employment, and return of property. Compensation – the provision of compensation "for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case". Such damage includes physical or mental harm, lost opportunities, material damages, loss of earnings, moral damage, and the cost of legal, medical, psychological, and social services. Rehabilitation – medical, psychological, and social services, and legal assistance. Satisfaction – various measures that include the cessation of human rights violations and abuses, truth-seeking, searches for the disappeared, recovery and reburial of remains, judicial and administrative sanctions, public apologies, commemoration, and memorialization. Guarantees of non-repetition – reforms ensuring the prevention of future abuses, including civilian control of the military and security forces, strengthening an independent judiciary, protection of civil service and human rights workers, the overall promotion of human rights standards, and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent and monitor social conflict and conflict resolution.
Who receives reparation Victims of violations of international human rights or humanitarian law have the right to prompt, sufficient, and effective reparations. Victims can be individuals or a collective group of individuals who have suffered similar violations. Descendants of victims also have rights to reparations for injustices that affected the emotional and financial well-being of the deceased's family members. Such victims, as defined by the UN Basic Principles on the matter, include:
"Persons who individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss, or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute gross violations of international human rights law, or serious violations of international humanitarian law… the immediate family or dependents of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization."
Who provides reparation In political and legal theory, the state is held responsible for ensuring the protection of human rights and the administration of justice within its borders; consequently, it bears the duty of providing redress for abuses and injustices suffered by its citizens. The UN Basic Principles state that if a person or entity other than the state is found liable for the violations and abuses endured, that party is responsible for providing reparation directly to the victim. When the responsible party is unable or unwilling to do so the Principles provide for states to provide interim redress or establish mechanisms to recover compensation from the liable party.
The international legal basis for the right to an effective remedy and the duty to provide reparation can be found in multiple human rights and humanitarian treaties and conventions, including:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 8 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 2 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – Article 6 (PDF version) The United Nations Convention Against Torture – Article 14 The Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 39 The Hague Conventions respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land – Article 3 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts – Article 91 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – Articles 79 and 75 Also available at
Examples of reparations programs
Argentina The Argentine government provided reparations to victims of human rights abuses suffered under the military dictatorship during the period 1975–1983.
Canada For more than 100 years, Canada retained a practice of removing Indigenous Canadian children from their families and placing them in church-run Indian residential schools (IRS). This process was part of an effort to homogenize Canadian society and included the prohibition of native languages and cultural practices. In 1991, the Canadian government established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), which was charged with exploring the relationship among Aboriginal peoples, the government, and society.
As a result of the commission's recommendations, the government symbolically issued an apology in a "Statement of Reconciliation", admitting that the schools were designed on racist models of assimilation. Pope Benedict XVI also issued an apology on behalf of church members who were involved in the practice.Assembly of First Nations: "AFN National Chief Says Private Audience with Pope Benedict XVI in Vatican City "Closes the Circle" and Enables Work Towards Reconciliation for Residential School Survivors" In addition, the government provided a $350 million fund to help those affected by the schools. In 2006, the federal government signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, agreeing to provide reparations to survivors of this program. The settlement totals approximately $2 billion and includes financial compensation, a truth commission, and support services.
In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in Canada in the House of Commons and announced reparations that would be made to citizens who were injured by specific actions of the State.
Chile In 1990, Chile's newly elected president Patricio Aylwin created the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate the human rights abuses of General Augusto Pinochet's 1973–1990 dictatorial regime. The commission investigated disappearances, political executions, and torture, publishing the Rettig Report with its findings in 1991. Afterward, its work was continued by the National Corporation for Reparations and Reconciliation. These programs recommended reparations for the victims, including monthly pensions, educational benefits for the children of the disappeared, exemption from military service, and priority access to health services.
However, these initiatives have also been criticized on a variety of grounds, such as their refusal to identify the perpetrators of violence and their failure to recognize a comprehensive range of victims to whom reparations are due.
Japan During WWII, the Imperial Japanese Army created the jugun ianfu (comfort women) system and carried out the Rape of Nanjing. Japanese soldiers committed numerous war crimes against civilians, including the mass rape and murder of over 200,000 Southeast Asian women. These women, some as young as twelve years old, were coerced and abducted from their homes and placed in military-controlled facilities where they would serve as sex slaves to the imperial army. Japan issued a public apology in 1984; however, it did not attempt to restore or redress the victims (or their families and descendants) of the atrocity.
In 1991, surviving Korean comfort women filed a lawsuit against the Imperial Japanese Army, and in 1998, three comfort women were awarded $2,300 (US) each. As a result of additional lawsuits, Japan appointed a committee to investigate the issue of comfort women and address further attempts at redress.
To provide financial compensation to victims, the committee established the Asian Women's Fund, which collected donations from private individuals and organizations, as well as the government, to aid comfort women and support contemporary women's issues. This fund also served as a form of emotional redress, representing the Japanese people's remorse for the imperial army's actions.
Morocco In Morocco, the period between the 1960s and 1990s is often referred to as the "years of lead," referring to the massive human rights violations that occurred during the government's campaign of political oppression, including executions, torture, and the annihilation of other civil liberties. Shortly after he ascended the throne in 1999, King Mohammed VI created the Independent Arbitration Commission (IAC) to compensate the victims of forced disappearances and arbitrary detention. The IAC decided more than 5,000 cases and awarded a total of US$100 million. Still, victims and their families complained of a lack of transparency in the tribunal's procedures and demanded truth-seeking measures in addition to financial compensation.