Reparations for Victims of Genocide: The Case for Substantive ICJ Awards

It is clear that violations of international law are expected to result in reparations, and there is hardly a violation of international law worse than genocide. This article confirms the need to repair genocide and notes the challenges faced in awarding various types of reparations, particularly for large groups. Distinguishing current International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases on genocide from the Court’s previous approach in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), it then argues that – should the merits support it – an award of substantive and not merely declaratory damages is necessary to repair these victims. Given that there is no precedent for a substantive award in erga omnes cases on the basis of parens patriae, the Court must recognize a new type of mechanism, formulated in conjunction with the United Nations, which will allow reparations to be disseminated amongst eligible victims who are not nationals of the applicant state. Only if there is substantive reparation of victims can it be claimed that the outcome will serve the interests of justice and contribute in real terms to the Convention’s mission to prevent the “crime of crimes.”