The Right to Reparations for War Damages: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Applications in Post-1999 Timor-Leste

Abstract

A right to reparations for war damages has been progressively consolidating in international law. The paper explores the extent to which three common justifications for reparations apply to war contexts: the preservation of individual autonomy, a Lockean procedural conception of property rights, and the integrity of market exchange. The ideal type of a "massively destructive war" is defined for that purpose, and it is found that, the closer a war is to this ideal type, the less the standard justifications apply. The paper argues that, when it comes to the allocation of resources during and in the aftermath of war, the forward-looking imperatives of satisfying basic rights and creating conditions of equal opportunity should be prioritized. The closer a war is to being massively destructive, the weaker the imperative of reestablishing previous entitlements. This normative conclusion provides the basis for a critique of a transitional property law currently under discussion in Timor-Leste, which prioritizes past entitlements over need and ongoing de facto possession.

Keywords: Reparations, transitional justice, post-conflict reconstruction, Timor-Leste, international law