When after lengthy adjudication reparations eventually materialise in the locations where the atrocities occurred, survivors’ responses to such reparations vary greatly. Such responses may include relief and celebration, but reparations are just as likely to be met with confusion, contestation and/or rejection. The practices that determine how reparations are conceived significantly influence the responses that victims and others in society develop regarding such reparations. Behind these questions is the dynamic interrelationship between what courts have to offer and what victims accept as reparations. This chapter explores this conundrum by way of three concrete reparative measures considered or implemented in the context of the ECCC’s reparations mandate. In juxtaposing measures that were granted by ECCC judges as reparations and those that were rejected, the chapter shows some of the effects of courts’ practices on the meaning of reparations.

Chapter 6 is an analysis of human–elephant conflict in Northern Botswana. Here, autonomy has a very different role in the making of the conflict, as the autonomy that is given priority is the autonomy of people outside of direct contact with elephants and often outside of the country and continent itself. The chapter demonstrates that the promotion of autonomy between people is not equal and is interrelated with other dominations involving race, gender, culture and status. In Botswana, this means that responses to human–elephant conflict are often dictated by people who do not have any direct experience with the conflict and do not have to bear the everyday cost of living with conflict. A cursory analysis of these responses suggests that there has been an attempt to build resilience to vulnerability, as the state has implemented measures that are prima facie consistent with a vulnerability approach. However, the case study shows that even genuine resilience measures can be ineffective when there is a lack of collaboration in their design and implementation and when the money and power is held elsewhere.

Chapter 8 explains a process that is unique to the multilateral safeguard mechanism and that is sometimes misunderstood: the process of rebalancing. The chapter examines the conceptual questions that arise with the general notion of rebalancing as relating to a negotiation-derived consequence. It notes that the obligation of maintaining the balance of concessions informs the whole rebalancing exercise, in particular the consultations under Articles 8.1 and 12.3, the consideration of the means of compensation, and the notion of the withdrawal of substantially equivalent concessions and other obligations under the GATT 1994. The Chapter also explains the temporary suspension of the right to take rebalancing action under Article 8.2, and the natural tension that exists between the mandates of this provision and the conduct of dispute settlement proceedings under the DSU.

In Chapter 4, the focus turns to victims. The assessment looks to the ICC regime governing victims’ participation and reparations against the backdrop of environmental harm.

This chapter summarizies the behavioral strategies related to the balance life. These involve principles related to satisfaction limits, full spectrum of needs, diminishing satisfaction, positive spillover, segmentation, compensation, role conflict, role enrichment.

The Arab claim is that the Palestinian refugees were illegally expelled by Israel or fled from fear of illegal Israeli actions. The Israeli position is that the refugees fled because they were caught in an armed conflict caused by the aggression of Arab armed attempts to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. As to a “right of return,” the Arab position is that such a right exists in international law, and although many refugees may not wish to return, they have the right to do so. The Israel legal position under international law as being that neither under the general international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions, nor under the relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel. There does not appear to be any legal precedent or the claim that descendants of refugees also have a right of return. In accordance with international law, the refugees are entitled to be compensated for property they left in Israel. The Jews who fled Arab States are also entitled to such compensation; Israel’s position is that such mutual claims will have to be negotiated in a multilateral forum.

This chapter discusses the remedies that are available under WTO law. It explains that the preferred solution to a dispute is a mutually agreed solution. If this is not possible, and the defending party does not implement any adverse rulings, the defending party may offer compensation (in the form of equivalent trade concessions). The last and least desirable option is retaliation, or the suspension of concessions. The chapter explains the procedures for each of these possible remedies, with a particular focus on the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU of the amount of retaliation proposed by the complaining party. The chapter also discusses the “sequencing” problem arising out of the deadlines to request the right to retaliate in the DSU. Finally, the chapter discusses the special rules governing disputes over subsidies and the role played by suggestions by the panel and Appellate Body on implementation.

Chapter 5 explores the nature of international economic obligations. It suggests that remedies in international economic regimes have a restorative rather than punitive purpose. It is argued that attribution of breach may not be relevant, or that relevant, in the international economic law context. This study posits that what international courts and tribunals ask is not who is responsible for a breach but rather who is best placed to bear responsibility. In international economic law, shared responsibility typically raises the question of the proper respondent(s).

This Chapter was initially drafted during the Obama Administration. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) had been negotiated and, although it had not yet been ratified in the United States, the Administration and majority of policy makers were in favor of its implementation. Since that time, as previous Chapters have made clear, the United States Administration changed and the United States withdrew from participation in the TPP. While unfortunate, the Administration’s political decision to withdraw from the TPP does not come as a surprise; an examination of the negotiating history of those provisions illuminates a stark political divide within the United States, even prior to the change in Administrations. Fortunately, the other eleven parties to the TPP persevered, resulting in the Comprehensive and Progressive TPP.

The chapter concentrates on two late medieval archives. The first preserves “act-books” or logs of daily court activity and annual fiscal information from the archdeaconry of Xanten on the Lower Rhine. The second keeps registers of sentences and the dossiers of complete suits or “cause papers” assembled by the bishop’s tribunal of Basel in Switzerland. Their examination establishes what Christians from both regions expected canonical adjudication to deliver in disputes over the validity of marriages. The ordinary judges of Basel and Xanten were heavily involved in inquests that did not exceed preliminaries from a legal standpoint. Decisions emanating from their activities found with greatest frequency that a supposed spousal union failed to rise to the level of lawful proof. Many of the defeated plaintiffs at Xanten were ready to take advantage of the outcome by bringing another suit in the same venue. Women who lost their claim to a spouse often returned to sue the winner for alimony, bridal money, or to compensate for the loss of their virginity.

This chapter discusses the development of negative and positive human rights obligations under international human rights law (IHRL) and their applicability to hostage-taking. It is shown that the development of IHRL can be fundamental for the protection of the human rights of hostages, filling in the gaps left by jurisdiction in international law and state responsibility, as states have a duty to protect the human rights of hostages by adopting all possible measures to prevent hostage-taking; taking action to end the violations that hostages suffer at the hands of their abductors; investigating a hostage incident and rescue operation; and compensating the victims. Chapter 5 also discusses the jurisdictional limitations of the human rights framework which sit uncomfortably in the transboundary nature of hostage-taking. The second part of the chapter therefore reassesses the human rights obligations of states which operate beyond their borders in order to release hostages.

Chapter 6 will move the discussion from what obligations states have under IHRL to how states have to act in order to fulfil these obligations in practice. This chapter tests state practice against the human rights framework in order to evaluate whether states comply with their human rights obligations when they deal with hostage-taking. By drawing on a wide range of practice by states which have experienced terrorist attacks over the years as well as counter-piracy measures adopted by various states, this chapter seeks to improve our understanding of what states do in response to hostage-taking and how they can better incorporate the needs of hostages in their responses.

After surveying how a capitalist culture and corresponding associationism expanded throughout the Pacific lowlands in the 1840s, Chapter 6 chronicles a final abolitionist movement in Colombia leading in the early 1850s to a final abolition law that compensated slaveholders. This chapter offers the first in-depth study of compensation in Colombia and Chocó specifically, a befuddling bureaucratic process for both lowland officials and ex-masters. Notwithstanding administrative challenges, former slaveholders in the lowlands circulated the government-sponsored “manumission bills” well into the 1850s, whether to pay off their private debts or fortify their descendants’ wealth via their last will and testament. These haunting records lay bare the immediate financial afterlife of slavery in the Colombian Pacific, revealing how enslaved lowlanders’ “paper bodies” continued to fuel the postslavery economy. Finally, the chapter examines the lowlands’ contending postslavery racial geographies and economies into the 1850s. Frontier authorities and former slaveholders sought to retain gradual emancipation rule and devised new methods of social control but had little success implementing such measures in the historically autonomous Colombian Pacific. On the coastal frontier, a social universe daily managed by independent black bogas and gold miners, the principal challenge for white rulers after emancipation was black autonomy.

The Epilogue traces the decline of US survivors’ civil rights activism in the US and the increased trans-Pacific collaboration among American, Korean, Japanese survivors aimed at obtaining compensation from the Japanese government. This development, based on the era‘s notion of human rights, was shaped by the precedents set by Korean survivors. By the turn of the twenty-first century, Korean survivors successfully sued the Japanese government for its failure to treat Korean survivors fairly. As victims of the Japanese wartime empire, Koreans carried more leverage than Americans when they confronted the Japanese government. Japanese survivors, too, urged their government to extend benefits to non-Japanese survivors. As more survivors came together, both the US and Japanese governments exhibited a tenacious refusal to recognize the bombs‘ human cost. Ultimately, US survivors’ history shows how nation-states’ failure to grasp the nuclear injury continues to shape historical understanding, suppressing along the way the voices of people who have long been bridging the nations. Built on this failure is the misguided policy of nuclear buildup in the name of national security.

Chapter 9 examines environmental torts with a focus on the special rules and doctrines developed since the 1980s and under the Tort Law (2009) and relevant judicial interpretations of the SPC. Although most pollution-triggered disputes are resolved by mediation, courts offer the crucially important last resort for China’s most aggrieved and stubborn victims of pollution to seek remedies. Their efforts in seeking access to justice have helped shaping and reforming the rules and practice of environmental tort law to address the difficulties in the collection of evidence, assessment of damage, case acceptance by court, and enforcement of judgment. The chapter starts with exploration of the long journey to establish the rule of no-fault liability as an exception to the conventional fault-based liability by both judicial interpretation and legislation. It then examines the causal link between defendant’s acts and plaintiff’s loss or injury and the rule on the shift of burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. As environmental torts often involve multiple tortfeasors and large number of victims, the chapter further investigates forms of liability among multiple tortfeasors, class action and remedies. It concludes with discussion of judicial mediation as a preferred option for settling disputes in court.