Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UN court rules against Italy over WWII compensation
Options
-
03-02-2012 1:05pm#1From the BBC
The UN's highest court has ruled that Italy was wrong to allow its courts to make claims for compensation against Germany for Nazi war crimes.
The International Court of Justice's ruling confirms that Germany has legal immunity from being sued in foreign courts by victims of such crimes.
Germany has paid tens of billions of dollars in reparations since the 1950s.
It appealed to the UN court in 2008 after Italy's supreme court backed a claim by a former slave labourer.
ICJ judge Hisashi Owada read out the verdict at the court's headquarters in The Hague.
It found that the Italian supreme court had violated Germany's sovereignty in 2008 by judging that Italian civilian Luigi Ferrini was entitled to reparations for his deportation to Germany in 1944 to work as a slave labourer in the armaments industry.
The ICJ is the UN's highest judicial organ and settles disputes between states.
Its rulings are final and binding on states.
Wave of claims
Mr Ferrini made his claim for compensation from Germany in 1998 and in 2004 the Italian supreme court decided in his favour.
A wave of compensation claims ensued and as of September last year, there were 80 cases pending with 500 plaintiffs, German lawyers told the ICJ.
Greece was also drawn into the dispute after relatives of Greek victims of a massacre in 1944 refiled a case before Italian courts.
Germany had previously refused to pay compensation to the Greek claimants.
Last year, German lawyers argued that the "consequences would be severe" if Italian courts were allowed to continue hearing such claims.
Germany said it could put "all interstate peace settlements in jeopardy by allowing domestic courts to re-examine and reopen them", allowing plaintiffs to "shop around for the most favourable courts".
Italy argued for its part that such claims were admissible as the abuses committed by German troops amounted to "international crimes" which had precedence over state immunity.0
Comments
-
What are your thoughts on this article?0
-
What are your thoughts on this article?
As someone interested in WWII, it's of academic interest.
As someone with a legal background, I find the discussion on the doctrine of state immunity in the context of human rights abuses to be of more interest - slavery is supposed to be one of those peremptory norms which no international treaty can derogate a state from.
the plaintiff might have done better if he had proceeded against an individual or company, but I suspect the motive behind the action had little to do with money and a lot to do with holding Germany to account.0 -
I would be interested in knowing why the plaintiff chose to pursue his claim via the Italian courts rather then the German.0
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »I would be interested in knowing why the plaintiff chose to pursue his claim via the Italian courts rather then the German.
Knowing absolutely nothing about the German courts or legal system, I'd imagine there are laws in place to prevent such claims arising after such a long period of time. If he did / could file against a company in Germany it's likely he could only get on to them for lost wages.
Also it seems he was arrested and deported by the occupying Germans, which is - obviously enough - a state action. His claim in damages would have to go against the state (Germany).
Maybe even though he "lost" - he won. If the goal was to highlight the issue he's succeeded - we're discussing it after all!:)0 -
As someone interested in WWII, it's of academic interest.
It's not normal to post articles without any comment.
There is a thread for random media articles elsewhere on here.As someone with a legal background, I find the discussion on the doctrine of state immunity in the context of human rights abuses to be of more interest - slavery is supposed to be one of those peremptory norms which no international treaty can derogate a state from.
Which law are you referring to?
If that were the case would that not also make Britain and France and the USA (among a list of others) financially liable for slavery ? Is forced labour technically the same as slavery ?the plaintiff might have done better if he had proceeded against an individual or company, but I suspect the motive behind the action had little to do with money and a lot to do with holding Germany to account.
I don't see any reason for your suspicion that money is not the motive here.
Can I ask - which individual or company do you think they should have pursued ?
You need to consider that Germany has already compensated Greece repeatedly. I know in some of the other previous multiple legal cases against Germany conditions were put in place to ensure 'this is the last time' , as a means of drawing the line underneath them.
It's now 2012 Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944, - 68 yrs on. That would be like the economicaly distressed Ireland of 1990 suing Britain (or a British individual) for compensation for events which took place during the War of Independence.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that at some point a line has to be drawn, otherwise you are imposing financial penalties on grandchildren for the umpteenth time. Germany compensated in the form of heavy industry which was exported, patents which were taken, brainpower which was exported and many times in many of the previous multiple cases in the past.
At this point I doubt it is even possible to calcultate the full total compensated but it does not seem reasonable or practical to revisit this every few years.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not normal to post articles without any comment.
There is a thread for random media articles elsewhere on here.
I consider my wrist slapped......
Which law are you referring to?
I wasn't referring to a law - state immunity is a doctrine
If that were the case would that not also make Britain and France and the USA (among a list of others) financially liable for slavery ? Is forced labour technically the same as slavery ?
I'm reaching back into the depths of my memory here so I may get this wrong - but I doubt you could sue Britain, France or the US for slavery - because there are unlikely to be any former slaves left alive and generally causes of action do not survive death (there are some exceptions).
there are degrees of slavery - from chattel slavery (where people were bought and sold), through to involuntary servitude and indentured servitude. Forced labour would, I think, meet the definition of slavery because while the person may not be sold, they are labouring for someone else; not free to transfer their labour; and operating under pain of punishment.I don't see any reason for your suspicion that money is not the motive here.
Because generally these classes of case tend to be about bringing countries / organisations / companies to account - the amount of money involved is often very modest - people are looking for vindication or to highlight the memory of those not lucky enough to have survived.Can I ask - which individual or company do you think they should have pursued ?
the company or its successor company - I don't know who the man was forced to work for, but Heckler and Koch grew out of Mauser; Rheinmetall are still trading; Krupp is now part of ThyssenKrupp; and the lineage of EADS can be traced directly to Messerschmitt.
You need to consider that Germany has already compensated Greece repeatedly. I know in some of the other previous multiple legal cases against Germany conditions were put in place to ensure 'this is the last time' , as a means of drawing the line underneath them.
It's now 2012 Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944, - 68 yrs on. That would be like the economicaly distressed Ireland of 1990 suing Britain (or a British individual) for compensation for events which took place during the War of Independence.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that at some point a line has to be drawn, otherwise you are imposing financial penalties on grandchildren for the umpteenth time. Germany compensated in the form of heavy industry which was exported, patents which were taken, brainpower which was exported and many times in many of the previous multiple cases in the past.
At this point I doubt it is even possible to calcultate the full total compensated but it does not seem reasonable or practical to revisit this every few years.
I don't think I need to consider anything as I've no involvement in the case, but generally it is accpeted that there are certain acts / crimes that can never be "long stopped" - murder being the obvious one.
If his claim was a pure civil one it would - no doubt - be long stopped, but the interesting point that this judgment seems to suggest is that the ICJ are now saying that either slavery is no longer a peremptory norm under international law or that forced labour is not a class of slavery that falls to be considered as a peremptory norm.0 -
I wasn't referring to a law - state immunity is a doctrine
I am not from a legal background but surely if a State agree to compensate to the tune of Billions and billions then that State have an entitlement to make it conditional on some sort of 'this is the last time, ever, ever' clause ?
Otherwise you are leaving the doors to your central bank swinging open and the open endedness of that position would directly influence any amount being discussed. If it is a final amount it will be all inclusive and overly generous.
Greece was compensated to the tune of billions and billions in previous years and it was a condition that this was final. Surely that condition overrides any supposed 'doctrine of state non-immunity' - no ?there are degrees of slavery - from chattel slavery (where people were bought and sold), through to involuntary servitude and indentured servitude. Forced labour would, I think, meet the definition of slavery because while the person may not be sold, they are labouring for someone else; not free to transfer their labour; and operating under pain of punishment.
Would this include Germans in forced labour at war's end ? Not just German troops in Russia kept into the late 1950's but also German citizens used as compulsory labour in allied territories including France post-war.Because generally these classes of case tend to be about bringing countries / organisations / companies to account - the amount of money involved is often very modest - people are looking for vindication or to highlight the memory of those not lucky enough to have survived.
I have read of the compensation efforts as outlined in for example, Norman Finkelstein's 'Holocaust Industry', which dragged on for decades cross countries and money was certainly a motive. To say the amounts were modest would be factually incorrect.
I can't say definitively in the case of Greece as I am not overly familiar with it but surely the current economic & political situation re Greece V Germany is a consideration ?
In any event I can't accept that blanket characterisation that 'money in these cases is modest and nothing to do with motivation' with nothing to support it.the company or its successor company - I don't know who the man was forced to work for, but Heckler and Koch grew out of Mauser; Rheinmetall are still trading; Krupp is now part of ThyssenKrupp; and the lineage of EADS can be traced directly to Messerschmitt.
I am aware of that but you previously said "the plaintiff might have done better if he had proceeded against an individual or company," I was just asking you knew which individual or which company.I don't think I need to consider anything as I've no involvement in the case, but generally it is accpeted that there are certain acts / crimes that can never be "long stopped" - murder being the obvious one.
If his claim was a pure civil one it would - no doubt - be long stopped, but the interesting point that this judgment seems to suggest is that the ICJ are now saying that either slavery is no longer a peremptory norm under international law or that forced labour is not a class of slavery that falls to be considered as a peremptory norm.
In terms of consistency you are commenting on the case despite a lack of direct involvement, so I don't see 'involvement' as a requirement to consider relevant facts.
I would consider these :Germany has already compensated Greece repeatedly. I know in some of the other previous multiple legal cases against Germany conditions were put in place to ensure 'this is the last time' , as a means of drawing the line underneath them.
It's now 2012 Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944, - 68 yrs on. That would be like the economicaly distressed Ireland of 1990 suing Britain (or a British individual) for compensation for events which took place during the War of Independence.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that at some point a line has to be drawn, otherwise you are imposing financial penalties on grandchildren for the umpteenth time. Germany compensated in the form of heavy industry which was exported, patents which were taken, brainpower which was exported and many times in many of the previous multiple cases in the past.
At this point I doubt it is even possible to calcultate the full total compensated but it does not seem reasonable or practical to revisit this every few years.
to be relevant facts.
I also don't see any reason to accept that murder is never 'long stopped' whatever that means, in any legal context where one state has compensated (uniquely) to the tune of tens upon tens upon tens of billions, decades and decades after the fact, I can't accept that this should simply be an open ended bleeding sore on a national economy. Morally it is unjustifiable to punish generations of innocents born decades after the fact. From what you have posted so far I don't see any conrete reason to accept that that state of open-endedness around compensation is the legal reality.0 -
I posted the article up because it was about WWII and this is a WWII forum.
The point I was discussing is whether forced labour in the context of WWII in general and Italy-Germany is something governed by the rule of international law - in the past slavery (which depending on the circumstances may include forced labour) is not something states could avoid liability in respect of.
Italy made this point in its submission before the ICJ - that the matter fell within the definition of peremptory norms and should not be excluded by any previous treaties between the countries.
The Court acknowledged this line of argument in its judgment - that in effect there is a conflict between peremptory norms and and the doctrine of state immunity.
The Court didn't see it that way and the judge summed up the position very neatly (jus cogens is the body of law applying to peremptory norms):-
"........the two sets of rules address different matters: the rules of State immunity are confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State may exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State; they do not bear upon the question whether or not the conduct in respect of which the proceedings are brought was lawful or unlawful.
he Court further points out that the argument based on the primacy of jus cogens over the law of State immunity has been rejected by national courts, and that there is no national legislation which has limited immunity in cases where violations of jus cogens are alleged. The Court concludes that, even on the assumption that the proceedings in the Italian courts involved violations of jus cogens rules, the applicability of the customary international law on State immunity was not affected."
That's pretty much the end of the discussion until some other country goes before the ICJ with a better argument or a judge takes a similar case and persuades his colleagues to follow a different line.
Finally, crimes against humanity includes (in very defined circumstances) murder and enslavement and they are not subject to a statute of limitations - this position was enshrined in German law in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, the German law enacted to being the German Criminal Code in to line with international law in this area.0 -
Am I the only one who thinks the concept of successor states is slightly problematic in cases such as this?
Modern day Germany was preceeded by East and West Germany who in turn preceeded Allied Occupied Germany. Effectively Nazi Germany was 'two states' ago. Attempting to claim that modern day Germany (an entirely different state) is somehow responsible for claims deriving from the actions of Nazi Germany seems utterly absurd.
Anyone else got thoughts on this?0 -
HavingCrack wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks the concept of successor states is slightly problematic in cases such as this?
Modern day Germany was preceeded by East and West Germany who in turn preceeded Allied Occupied Germany. Effectively Nazi Germany was 'two states' ago. Attempting to claim that modern day Germany (an entirely different state) is somehow responsible for claims deriving from the actions of Nazi Germany seems utterly absurd.
Anyone else got thoughts on this?
Well, if the State in question 'inherited' the assets of the previous incarnations it should also inherit it's debts...
The German Weimar Republic was expected to pay the 'debts' incurred by Imperial Germany.
The Irish Free State was required to pay back loans advanced to farmers by Westminster while Ireland was still part of the British Empire...0 -
Advertisement
-
HavingCrack wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks the concept of successor states is slightly problematic in cases such as this?
Modern day Germany was preceeded by East and West Germany who in turn preceeded Allied Occupied Germany. Effectively Nazi Germany was 'two states' ago. Attempting to claim that modern day Germany (an entirely different state) is somehow responsible for claims deriving from the actions of Nazi Germany seems utterly absurd.
Anyone else got thoughts on this?
To my knowledge the DDR did not pay compensation to victims of the Nazis.
The BRD was foolish and easily blackmailed. How long more are people going to look for compensation in this? if you scratch under the surface you will find that other countries perpetrated most heinous crimes , yet were never pursued for compensation. look at the Czechs and what they did in 1945/46.
Maybe our nearest neighbours should start paying compensation for the victims of the famine. If I were to harp on about this I would be soon told to get a life. maybe that is what these people need to do as well.
how long more are we going to bring up the Nazis whenever we are unhappy with Germany?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Well, if the State in question 'inherited' the assets of the previous incarnations it should also inherit it's debts...
The German Weimar Republic was expected to pay the 'debts' incurred by Imperial Germany.
And you can see what that did to the Weimar state. At some stage there has to be debt forgiveness, if the post WW2 West Germany hadn't had debt forgiveness and aid then it wouldn't have recovered and could have sunk back into being an unstable state.
And regarding compensation and reparations, while I agree that generous compensation should be given in cases of slavery/concentration camp victims etc, there has to be a statute of limitations on it, more than 60 years have passed, thats enough to draw the line on it at this stage.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »And you can see what that did to the Weimar state. At some stage there has to be debt forgiveness, if the post WW2 West Germany hadn't had debt forgiveness and aid then it wouldn't have recovered and could have sunk back into being an unstable state.
And regarding compensation and reparations, while I agree that generous compensation should be given in cases of slavery/concentration camp victims etc, there has to be a statute of limitations on it, more than 60 years have passed, thats enough to draw the line on it at this stage.
I agree there has to come a point where claims can no longer be made for compensation - the question is when is that point.
I don't think there should be a time limit for the return of stolen property however - be that paintings, jewels etc taken from Jews or antiquities looted from countries.
So British Museum - give the Elgin Marbles back to Greece (or make an offer to buy them, they could do with the money)0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I agree there has to come a point where claims can no longer be made for compensation - the question is when is that point.
I don't think there should be a time limit for the return of stolen property however - be that paintings, jewels etc taken from Jews or antiquities looted from countries.
So British Museum - give the Elgin Marbles back to Greece (or make an offer to buy them, they could do with the money)
stolen property again is opening a can of worms. Should it also include paintings 'liberated' by the Americans and now in American museums?
In the case of Austria if the Jews get back their property then so should the Habsburgs. Give back the stolen property in Sudentenland and the estates confiscated by the DDR authorities.0 -
stolen property again is opening a can of worms. Should it also include paintings 'liberated' by the Americans and now in American museums?
In the case of Austria if the Jews get back their property then so should the Habsburgs. Give back the stolen property in Sudentenland and the estates confiscated by the DDR authorities.
Yes, it is a can of Worms - but to not do so is to allow thefts during war/conquest to be deemed acceptable. It's looting - plain and simple.
I doubt if many Irish people would be happy if the Ardagh Chalice or Book of Kells were sitting in the British Museum.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Yes, it is a can of Worms - but to not do so is to allow thefts during war/conquest to be deemed acceptable. It's looting - plain and simple.
I doubt if many Irish people would be happy if the Ardagh Chalice or Book of Kells were sitting in the British Museum.
Looting is a very acceptable part of war unfortunately. On the whole the British and Canadians were the worst for it in WW2 from what I can see. Looting of civilian homes in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Italy was very, very commonplace. The chances of anyone ever prosecuting the victors of any war for looting is non-existent unfortunately. Sad but true.0
Advertisement