Originally from The American Review of International Arbitration (ARIA)

PREVIEW PAGE

An international claims commission could be an invaluable tool in providing a measure of justice to the victims of Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine. A commission would serve to document and memorialize the harm caused by Russia’s wrongful acts through a registry of damages.  It would also, ideally, process and adjudicate claims and provide claimants with monetary compensation for their losses. Otherwise, the strenuous, time-consuming, and often emotionally difficult process of filing claims could seem somewhat pointless for victims who deserve compensation in principle, and frequently need it as a practical matter. Finding funds to pay out awards, however, could prove difficult, and different approaches to compensating victims entail their own sets of costs and benefits. This article will outline two avenues of securing funding for reparations and their implications for various interests at stake.

I.     SEIZURE OF FROZEN CENTRAL BANK ASSETS     

President Zelensky has stated his intention to make Russia pay for the damage it has caused to his country.  Seizing even a portion of the estimated $300 billion worth of frozen Russian central bank assets is an attractive option to achieve this end for a number of reasons.  First, the assets are directly linked to Russia, meaning that if such assets were used to fund a claims commission, the Russian State would unambiguously be the party making reparation for its unlawful use of force against Ukraine. Second, seizure of central bank assets could provide an expeditious method of delivering funds to victims who need them quickly. Central bank assets are liquid, and freezing measures mean they are currently available in theory.  However, there is a major downside of this method of funding. Namely, there are domestic and international legal bars to seizing a sovereign State’s property under the doctrine of State immunity.