Abstract Scholars generally agree that the handling of compensation for moral damage claims in treaty arbitration has been unsatisfactory due to the lack of guidelines or methodologies. The difficulties in finding appropriate quantification methodologies are apparent, as moral harm to an individual results in the loss of an intangible asset: a diminution in the quality of life, whether temporary or permanent. Intangibles, in turn, are challenging to quantify because they typically do not or cannot have an actively traded market. Yet, economists, across a range of fields, have long resorted to hedonic models and willingness-to-pay methods that consistently assign monetary values to such intangible assets. This article introduces these concepts from an economic perspective and illustrates how quantum experts may apply them to derive moral harm compensation tailored to individuals in the context of treaty arbitrations. Quantifying moral damages is thus not impossible; through proper methodologies and expert evidence, parties and arbitrators alike can assess monetary compensation to harmed individuals, thereby making sense of the full reparation principle and helping to deter wrongful behavior by States.
Abdala et al. (Thu,) studied this question.