The conclusion pulls together findings of the three main chapters whose authors have approached the question of reparation in a complementary fashion. The interaction between different subfields of international law, namely international humanitarian law, human rights law, international criminal law, and the law of State responsibility has given rise to a legal evolution towards the recognition of victims and of their rights. The two factors most strongly impacting on the practice and arguably also on the international law of reparation are, first, international human rights law as developed by the regional human rights courts and, second, the post-conflict domestic law and policies of countries emerging from totalitarianism and civil strife. Ultimately, adequate reparation seems to come out of a combination of litigation, legislation, and peace agreements. The chapter also places the issue of reparations in the broader context of what has been called the ‘humanisation’ of the international legal order and the current backlash against it. It concludes that the real problem of reparation for the victims of armed conflict is no longer denial in doctrine and theory but rather implementation.

In the concluding chapter, the editor engages in a comparative and theory-building exercise across the jurisdictions covered in the book. There are important differences between international non-human-rights courts as to the legal basis for their application of human rights norms. While due process rights of the parties appearing before it, and systemic integration, are available for all courts, there are marked differences in issues such as standing by individuals, the status of human rights norms as applicable substantive law or basis for jurisdiction, and the patterns concerning which categories of human rights have made their way into other international courts. There are also clear examples of ‘other’ courts widening the scope of justiciable human rights, for instance through applying economic, social and cultural rights, or the right to property, or collective rights of peoples beyond the practice of actual human rights courts. In their application of human rights norms, 'other' international courts have at least so far tended to do so reflecting more the trend of humanisation, rather than constitutionalisation, of international law.