Reimbursement or compensation for damages caused by war: the civil law aspect

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the correlation between the concepts of reimbursement and compensation for damages, including during the war. The author highlights the issue of distinguishing between the concepts of reimbursement and compensation as synonymous categories. It is determined that the term “compensation” is broader in scope and includes the narrower term “reimbursement”, as well as additional features – remuneration or payments. It is proposed to change the use of the established phrase “reimbursement of moral damage” to “compensation for moral damage” due to the impossibility of accurate determination of the amount of reimbursement due to the non-property component and the need to compensate a person for a certain amount of compensation for suffering, especially in wartime. It is established that the categories of “damage” and “losses” are not identical. The characteristic features of both concepts are analysed. Losses are defined as material losses which should be determined in monetary terms. Damage is a broader concept and is considered to be the negative consequences of unlawful behaviour towards a certain entity in connection with the violation of its rights. Damage can be tangible or intangible, which is not inherent in losses. It is proved that damage and losses are interrelated, i.e. damage may include losses, but only in respect of property damage. It is emphasised that losses are defined as losses due to damage or destruction of property or losses which a person could have suffered. It is determined that the definition of “non-pecuniary damage” contains a reference to the fact that it is also disclosed as losses of a non-property nature. The article analyses and notes that losses are deprivation of a person of a certain benefit. Non-pecuniary damage is inflicted on a person in non-property terms and cannot be considered losses. The particularities of reimbursement of damage caused by war are considered. The article establishes the absence of a single mechanism for reimbursement of damages caused by violation of their rights as a result of armed aggression. The need and possibility of reimbursement, in addition to property damage, of moral damage caused by war is revealed. It is emphasised that today the State, either independently or with the involvement of international partners, provides compensation to victims of war.