Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:33:53.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eritrea’s Damages Claims (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Final Award. Ethiopia’s Damages Claims (Ethiopia v. Eritrea), Final Award

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

J. Romesh Weeramantry
J. Romesh Weeramantry*
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ERITREA'S DAMAGES CLAIMS (ERITREA V. ETHIOPIA), FINAL AWARD. Athttp://www.pca-cpa.org.Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, August 17, 2009.

ETHIOPIA'S DAMAGES CLAIMS (ETHIOPIA V. ERITREA), FINAL AWARD. Athttp://www.pca-cpa.org.Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, August 17, 2009.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 480 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eritrea’s Damages Claims (Eri. v. Eth.), Final Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Aug. 17, 2009).

2 Ethiopia’s Damages Claims (Eth. v. Eri.), Final Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Aug. 17, 2009).

3 The background, jurisdiction, and findings of the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (Commission) on the merits of Ethiopia’s and Eritrea’s claims are the subject of case reports at 99 AJIL 465 (2005), 100 AJIL 201 (2006), and 101 AJIL 616 (2007). All of the Commission’s decisions and awards are available at http://www.pca–cpa.org. The Commission’s awards on the merits and related materials are reprinted and indexed in 135ILR197–749. Various administrative or post–award matters may still remain to be completed by the Commission.

4 Jus ad Bellum (Eth. v. Eri.), Ethiopia’s Claims 1–8, Partial Award (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Dec. 19, 2005); see generally]. Weeramantry, Romesh International Law as to the Use of Force, In the 1998–2000 War Between Eritrea and Ethiopia 227 (Guttry , Andrea de Post, Harry & Venturini, Gabriella eds., 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Central Front, Ethiopia’s Claim 2 (Eth. v. Eri.), Partial Award, paras. 47, 50, 51, 58, 95 (Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Comm’n Apr. 28, 2004).

6 Apr. 18, 1961, 500 UNTS 95.

7 See Matheson, Michael J. Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission: Damage Awards, ASIL Insights (Sept. 4, 2009)Google Scholar.

8 In this regard, see the following book chapter written by one of the Commission’s members: Crook, John R. Fact–Finding in the Fog: Determining the Facts of Upheavals and Wars in Inter–state Disputes, in The Future of Investment Arbitration 313 (Rogers, Catherine A. & Alford, Roger P. eds., 2009)Google Scholar.

9 See, e.g., Hague Convention (No. IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, Art. 3, 36 Stat. 277, 1 Bevans 631; Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, Art. 91, 1125 UNTS 3; see also Koppe, Eric V. Compensation for War Damages Under]us ad Bellum, in The 1998–2000 War Between Eritrea and Ethiopia, supra note 4, at 417, 425–27 Google Scholar.

10 Notable here, however, is the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC), which was established to provide compensation for direct losses resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Guidance to the UNCC’s commissioners and secretariat on how to value and process claims was provided by the UNCC’s oversight body, the Governing Council. See, e.g., UNCC Governing Council, Decision No. 1: Criteria for Expedited Processing of Urgent Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/1991 /1 (Aug. 2, 1991), reprinted in 30ILM 1712(1991); UNCC Governing Council, Decision No. 9: Propositions and Conclusions on Compensation for Business Losses: Types of Damages and Their Valuation, UN Doc. S/AC.26/1992/9 (Mar. 6, 1992), reprinted in 31 ILM 1037 (1992).

11 See Brilmayer, Lea & Geoffrey, Chepiga Ownership of Use? Civilian Property Interests in International Humanitarian Law, 49 Harv. Int’l L.J. 413, 415 (2008)Google Scholar. The issue will soon come before the International Court of Justice if Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo fail to agree on the exact amount of damages that the former owes the latter. See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 ICJ Rep. 82, para. 260 (Dec. 19).

12 In this regard, see the separate opinion of Ian Brownlie in CME Czech Republic B. V. (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, Final Award, 9 ICSID REP. 412, paras. 77–81 (Mar. 14, 2003).

13 The UNCC used these types of techniques to great effect. See, e.g., UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fourth Instalment of Claims for Departure from Iraq or Kuwait (Category “A” Claims), paras. 8–34, UN Doc. S/AC.26/1995/4 (Oct. 12, 1995); see also Das, Hans & Hans Van, Houtte Post–War Restoration of Property Rights Under International Law, Vol. 2: Procedural Aspects 59–66, 179–241 (2008)Google Scholar.

14 For adetailed analysis of UNCC practice on this point, see generally Heiskanen, Veijo & Lerovtx, Nicolas Applicable Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and the Legacy of the UN Compensation Commission, in Designing Compensation After Upheaval: Insights From the Experience of THE United Nations Compensation Commission (Gibson, Christopher Feighery, Timothy & Payne, Cymie eds., forthcoming 2010)Google Scholar.