Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compensation and Reparation for Victims of Terrorism

  • Chapter
Assisting Victims of Terrorism

  • 1283 Accesses

Abstract

As demonstrated in Chapters 3 and 4, terrorism is capable of inflicting widespread personal injury, and unprecedented property and financial damage.1 Especially the 9/11 aftermath has led to a worldwide academic and political discussion on how to compensate victims of future terrorist acts.2 The debate concentrates on (a) the availability of (default) private and public compensation schemes, (b) their mutual relationship, and (c) whether government involvement and design of state compensation funds for victims of terrorism is advisable.

The authors wish to thank prof. Bernhard Koch, one of the experts of the seminar held in November 2007, for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter. The usual disclaimer applies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note, for instance, that the insured losses after the 9/11 attack were estimated between $30 and $58 billion. Most of the losses consisted of commercial property and business interruption loss. See P. Lenain, M. Bonturi & V. Koen, ‘Economic Consequences of Terrorism’, OECD Working Papers Department, No. 334, OECD Publishing 2002.

    http://fiordiliji.sourceoecd.org/vl=838689/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/wppdf?file=5lgsjhvj7zbr_OnlinePDF.pdf. See also Section 3.1.6 of Chapter 3.

  2. 2.

    R.L. Rabin, The September 11 Victim Compensation Fund: A Circumscribed Response or an Auspicious Model? Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, No. 65, L.S. Mullenix & K.B. Stewart, The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Fund approaches to resolving mass tort litigation, Conn. Ins. Law Journal Association, Fall 2002, E.S. Abraham & K.D. Logue, The Genie and the Bottle: Collateral Sources under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, 54 DePaul L. Rev. (2003), B.A. Koch (ed.), Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, A Comparative Survey, Tort and Insurance Law, Vol. 11, Vienna: Springer 2004, M.S. Shapo, Compensation for Victims of Terrorism, Oxford University Press, 2005.

  3. 3.

    Social Security Systems cover up for medical treatment and hospitalisation, loss of earnings and maintenance support. Note that the Netherlands has a system of private health insurance for medical costs. Private insurers apply their own acceptance criteria and the people who take out the insurance pay a nominal premium, which is not income-related, typically around EUR 900 a year. See for more information: http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/staf/health_insurance_in_the_netherlands_as_of_january002.asp.

  4. 4.

    As the 9/11 attacks have shown, terrorism risk was excluded of business property and business interruption insurances, since insurers considered the risk no longer insurable. See for more information Section 6.7.

  5. 5.

    Victims can bring claims against second tortfeasors such as the federal government or the airline industry; this is a very complicated – politically and legally – matter. See for more information Section 6.7.

  6. 6.

    See, Brienen, M.E.I. and Hoegen E.H., Victims of Crime in 22 European Jurisdictions: The Implementation of Recommendation 85 (11) of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Tilburg: Wolf Legal Productions 2000; Chapter 26 relating to the adhesion procedure and the compensation order in the CoE Member States.

  7. 7.

    A few EU Member States have set up legislation for compensation after natural and technological disasters, such as the Netherlands, Austria, France, Belgium and Spain. See for the Netherlands the Wet tegemoetkoming Schade bij rampen en zware ongevallen of 1998, for Austria the Katastrophen-fondsgesetz of 1996, for France the Catastrophe Naturelle Fund (CATNAT) of 1982, for Belgium the Fonds des calamités naturelles et des risques technologiques majeurs of 1990 for Spain the Consorcio de Compensacion de Seguros (CCS) of 1954. On European level, a solidarity fund exists, see for more information Section 6.6.3.

  8. 8.

    B.A. Koch, Report on Indemnifying Victims of Terrorism, A Comparative Survey for the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), 27 November 2006, p. 18.

    <http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/steering_committees/cdcj/cj-s-vict/CDCJ-BU%20(2006)%2019%20e%20-%20ECTIL%20Report_OnlinePDF.pdf. See further Section 6.3.

  9. 9.

    Note that also with regard to compensation issues, the lack of an accepted definition of terrorism may pose difficulties. See in this regard C. Lahnstein, Liability Insurance for Risks of Terrorism, in B.A. Koch (ed.), Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, 2004, p. 252: ‘With specific terrorism exclusions, problems of defining inevitably arise. […] No-one would see a well-intentioned Greenpeace attack as an act of terrorism, even if went wrong, although it does have the same symbolic nature in order to influence governments and the public. Difficulties also arise when it comes to distinguishing terrorism from war and other political risks, or from other criminal acts; or in differentiating organized terrorism from unorganized madness, as in the case of the recent attack on the metro in Korea; and finally, in distinguishing terrorism from normal accidents or normal industrial accidents.’

  10. 10.

    See P. de Greiff, Justice and Reparations, in P. de Greiff (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, New York, Oxford University Press 2006, pp. 452–453.

  11. 11.

    Signed in Strasbourg on 24 November 1983, European Treaty Series (ETS) – no. 116. 21 of the 47 Member States of the CoE have ratified the convention, most of them being also EU Member States. Already in 1977, a draft resolution on compensation of victims of crime was adopted by the Council. This led to the 1983 Convention. See for more information also K. Buck, State Compensation to Crime Victims and the Principle of Social Solidarity – Can Theoretical Analysis Contribute to a Future European Framework?, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 13/2,148–178, 2005.

  12. 12.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006 at the 967th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  13. 13.

    Official Journal L 082, 22/03/2001 P. 0001–0004.

  14. 14.

    Note that regarding cross-border litigations, a number of initiatives have been taken that seek to facilitate the possibility to obtain compensation from the offender. See Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001 and the Programme of measures for implementation of the principles of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001.

  15. 15.

    See Proposal for a Council Directive on Compensation to Crime Victims, COM (2002) 562 final, 2002/0247 (CNS), Brussels, 16 October 2002, p. 10.

  16. 16.

    See para 7 of the Preamble.

  17. 17.

    Proposal for a Council Directive on Compensation to Crime Victims, COM (2002) 562 final, 2002/0247 (CNS), Brussels, 16 October 2002, p. 12.

  18. 18.

    The original draft does contain standards on this issue, noting that ‘compensation shall cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses […]. Id., Article 4, p. 22.

  19. 19.

    Note that Principle 13 of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power also encourages “the establishment, strengthening and expansion of national funds to compensate victims. Where appropriate, other funds may also be established for this purpose, including those cases where the State of which the victim is a national is not in a position to compensate the victim for the harm.”

  20. 20.

    M.S. Groenhuijsen, Public Damage Funds. European Developments and Some Comparative Observations, in E. Fattah and S. Parmentier, (eds.), Victim Policies and Criminal Justice on the Road to Restorative Justice – Essays in Honour of Tony Peters (Leuven 2001), pp. 83–97, p. 92. See also Buck, 2005, pp. 150 ff. Joutsen has developed four theories as the philosophical basis of the legislation on State compensation: the legal tort theory, the social contract theory, the insurance theory and the utilitarian theory, in Julia Mikaelsson and Anna Wergens, Repairing the Irreparable, State Compensation to Crime Victims in the European Union, The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, Umea, Sweden, 2001, p. 176 and M. Joutsen, The Role of the Victim of Crime in European Criminal Justice Systems: A cross-national study of the role of the victim, Helsinki, HEUNI, 1987.

  21. 21.

    An exception is France that considers solidarity as a basis, yet offers full compensation for personal injury for victims of terrorism and other infringements. See for an analysis of the idea of ‘social solidarity’ Buck, 2005, pp. 151 ff.

  22. 22.

    Koch, 2006, p. 17.

  23. 23.

    H.J. Albrecht & M. Kilchling, ‘Victims of Terrorism, Policies and Legislation in Europe’, Council of Europe , CDPC Paper, March 2005, pp. 41–43.

  24. 24.

    Albrecht & Kilchling (2005).

  25. 25.

    Mikaelson and Wergens, 2001, pp. 63–75.

  26. 26.

    See further Section 6.4.

  27. 27.

    For an overview of all CoE States, see Albrecht & Kilchling, 2005.

  28. 28.

    For more information relating to these two elements, see Buck, pp. 159–160.

  29. 29.

    Green Paper, p. 11.

  30. 30.

    For a thorough overview on the developments regarding compensation to crime victims in the EU, see Mikaelsson and Wergens, 2001, concluding observations, pp. 169 ff.

  31. 31.

    See Preamble of the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims. Case 186/87 Cowan v. Tresor Public [1989] ECR 195. The case concerned a British national who was subjected to a violent assault while visiting France as a tourist. The perpetrators were never identified and the British national turned to the French state for compensation under the national compensation scheme. The French compensation scheme held that the victim should be either a French national, a national of a State with reciprocal agreements with France regarding state compensation, or a holder of a residence permit. The European Court found that these conditions infringe the non-discrimination principle in Article 7 of the EC Treaty.

  32. 32.

    COM (2001) 536, 28.09.2001.

  33. 33.

    The countries that joined the EU in 2004 (the EU underwent a historic enlargement to 10 countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean: Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) are not included in this study.

  34. 34.

    Green Paper, pp. 30–38.

  35. 35.

    See Buck, 2005, p. 156.

  36. 36.

    Note that the Statement on the Social Rights of Victims of Crime of the European Forum for Victim Services notes in Article 8(c) that ‘reciprocal arrangements should be in place so that compensation may be claimed when travelling abroad.’

  37. 37.

    See also Buck who analyses how this interpretation correlates with the notion of (European) solidarity, 2005, p. 157.

  38. 38.

    Mikaelsson and Wergens, 2001, pp. 232 ff.

  39. 39.

    Green paper, p. 12.

  40. 40.

    See point 26 of the special brochure for victims www.cica.gov.uk.

  41. 41.

    This does not mean that the applicant has to be British.

  42. 42.

    Para. 38 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme of 2001. The 1996 scheme was changed in 2001.

  43. 43.

    Para. 9 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

  44. 44.

    Para. 30–37 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

  45. 45.

    § 23 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

  46. 46.

    For a thorough discussion of the scheme, see David Miers, Rebuilding Lives: Operational and Policy Issues in the Compensation of Victims of Violent and Terrorist Crimes, Criminal Law Review, August 2006, pp. 695–721.

  47. 47.

    From an interview with Ms. Carol Stone, former chief executive of the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund and now freelance consultant. See also www.cica.gov.uk.

  48. 48.

    According to the scheme, this is the most difficult group to put a number on. See also Chapter 3 relating to vicarious victims. As a guide, you would come within this group: if you were on one of the underground trains that were bombed; or if you were in or near Tavistock Square and saw the Number 30 bus explode; and if your experience caused you to suffer a medically or psychiatrically diagnosed trauma. But people who were, understandably, fearful due to being in central London around the time of the bombings are unlikely to be able to receive compensation. The key element, in addition to the trauma itself, is a reasonable fear of immediate injury or death due to one of the bombs.’ See para 16 of the compensation scheme relating to the London bombing.

  49. 49.

    See for their website http://www.lbrcf.org.uk/.

  50. 50.

    See for their webiste http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=70133.

  51. 51.

    Id., p. 27.

  52. 52.

    For more information, see http://www.compensationni.gov.uk/.

  53. 53.

    Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, Final Report, We Will Remember Them, April 1998, p. 8.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., pp. 51 ff.

  55. 55.

    Opferentschädigungsgesetz (OEG) of 15 May 1976, amended in 1985 and 1991.

  56. 56.

    Albrecht & Kilchling, 2006, p. 28.

  57. 57.

    Please note that this section does not claim to be exhaustive; it merely aims to provide a general overview of applicable legislation and policies. In March/April 2008, A comparative study was conducted by Rianne Letschert and Antony Pemberton based on questionnaires sent out to OSCE Participating States, requesting information on victims of terrorism legislation and policies.

  58. 58.

    See further Albrecht & Kilching, October 2005, p. 30.

  59. 59.

    The fund compensates victims of serious offences and victims of road accidents occurring abroad.

  60. 60.

    See the French reaction to the OSCE/ODIHR Questionnaire sur la Practique des Etats Membres sur la Solidarity avec les Victimes de Terrorisme, question 6 E. On file with the authors.

  61. 61.

    These features were presented by Mr. Mallassagne of the Bureau de l’Aide aux Victimes et de la Politique Associative during the OSCE High Level Meeting on Victims of Terrorism, Vienna, 13–14 September 2007.

  62. 62.

    For an extensive overview of Spanish legislation, see the Spanish Reaction to the OSCE/ODIHR Questionnaire on the Practice of OSCE Participating States on Solidarity with Victims of Terrorism, on file with the authors.

  63. 63.

    See the Spanish Questionnaire, question 6 F.

  64. 64.

    Spain has compensated victims of 11 different nationalities after the Madrid bombings.

  65. 65.

    We were not able to find more information regarding this Fund.

  66. 66.

    See the OSCE ODIHR Questionnaire, question 15.

  67. 67.

    Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights for the CoM and PA of the CoE, On his visit to Spain, 10–19 March 2005, Strasbourg, 9 November 2005, commdh(2005)8, para. 157.

  68. 68.

    See Albrecht & Kilchling, October 2005, p. 17. For an historical overview of the Governments’ policy towards victims of terrorism from the moment the State of Israel was founded, see Uri Yanay, Assistance to Civilian Casualties of Hostile Actions, on file with the authors.

  69. 69.

    See for more information H. Sommer, Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Terrorism: Lessons Learned in the Israeli Experience, Indiana Law Review 335 (2003) and Uri Yanay, Assistance to Civilian Casualties of Hostile Actions, on file with the authors.

  70. 70.

    The definition excludes an injury that is inflicted upon a person age 18 or older while committing a crime, or a felony involving wilfulness or culpable negligence.

  71. 71.

    See for more information Peter Chalk, Bruce Hoffman, Robert Reville, Anna-Britt, Kasupski, Trends in Terrorism, Threats to the United States and the Future of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, RAND Publication, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG393_OnlinePDF.pdf.

  72. 72.

    See Albrecht & Kilchling, October 2005, p. 15. See also M. Diller, Tort and Social Welfare Principles in the Victim Compensation Fund, DePaul Law Review, nr. 53, 2003–2004, pp. 719–768. Especially the aspect of equal treatment has been widely criticised. Note for example the reaction of the mother of a fourteen year old daughter who died in the bombings of Oklahoma City: ‘Why is it right for a New York stockbroker’s widow to be given millions of dollars and not a poor farmer’s family in Oklahoma? […] They told me that my daughter was not worth as much as a New York victim, and that’s an ugly thing to say. In Issacharoff, S. and Morawiec Mansfield, A., Compensation for the Victims of September 11, in De Greiff, P (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 311.

  73. 73.

    Diller, 2003–2004, p. 720.

  74. 74.

    See Albrecht & Kilchling, October 2005, p. 16.

  75. 75.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/what_is_ovc/fs_000307.html#1.

  76. 76.

    Title IV of Pup. L. 107–142, 115 Stat. 230, 49 U.S.C. § 40101. The ATSSSA was completed with more concrete provisions by the Interim Final Rules of 21 December 2001 and the Final Rules of 13 March 2002.

  77. 77.

    See http://www.usdoj.gov/victimcompensation/civil_01.html.

  78. 78.

    C.C. Lebow, Understanding the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: The proper response or a dangerous precedent?, Ann. 2002 ATLA-CLE 243 (2002) vol. 1. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America played an important role in the realisation of the VCF.

  79. 79.

    See for more information also Samuel Issacharoff and Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Compensation for the Victims of September 11, in De Greiff, 2006, pp. 284–320.

  80. 80.

    L.S. Mullenix & K.B. Stewart, The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Fund approaches to resolving mass tort litigation, Conn. Ins. Law Journal Association, Fall 2002, p. 123.

  81. 81.

    For a discussion of the fund’s functioning, see also Lew Goldfarb, The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund – A Model for the Future or a one-off phenomenon? Munich Re Group, 11th International Liability Forum, Acts of Terrorism, Tort Law and Liability Insurance, 2007.

  82. 82.

    Medical treatment for harm had to be provided within 24 h after the injury or after the rescue. Victims who only sustained psychological harm were not eligible for compensation. When it was not possible to find the nature of the injury within 24 h, or when no medical treatment was available on September 11, the time limit could be expanded by the Special Master.

  83. 83.

    The injury or death had to commence within 12 h after the attacks. The time limit for rescue workers was put at 96 h after the attacks.

  84. 84.

    Disputes concerning the definition of a ‘personal representative’ were submitted to the District Courts.

  85. 85.

    §403;115 Stat. 239.

  86. 86.

    The American Trial Lawyers Association set up the Trial Lawyers Care (TLC) and granted on voluntary basis legal advice and counselling to eligible claimants, www.911lawhelp.org.

  87. 87.

    CFR 104.49(b)(2), p.11237.

  88. 88.

    When calculating the economic losses, special calculation models were set up for military and FDNY/NYPD police personnel, fire fighters, and airport employees.

  89. 89.

    The calculation of loss of future income years is based on the model drafted by J. Ciecka, T. Donley, J. Goldman, A Markov Process Model of Works-Life Expectancies for the Victim’s Age contained in 1997–1998, Journal of Legal Economics, Winter 2000.

  90. 90.

    E.S. Abraham and K.D. Logue, The Genie and the Bottle: Collateral Sources under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, 54 DePaul L. Rev. (2003).

  91. 91.

    § 405(b)(6).

  92. 92.

    Fed. Reg. Vol. 66 nr. 246, p. 66274 and see 28 CFR 104.47(b)(2).

  93. 93.

    See for more information Section 7.3.

  94. 94.

    CFR 104.47(b)(3).

  95. 95.

    The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) on 15 October 1999 the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee. The sanctions cover individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and/or the Taliban wherever located. See for more information http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.shtml.

  96. 96.

    Note that within the UN, a UN Compensation Commission (UNCC) was set up to establish Iraq’s liability for the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and to provide appropriate compensation to injured parties. For more information, see Hans van Houtte, Hans Das and Bert Delmartino, United Nations Compensation Commission, in De Greiff, 2006, pp. 321–389.

  97. 97.

    The Victim Trust Fund is part of the ICC. See the website of the ICC Trust Fund < http://www.icc-cpi.int/vtf.html >. As of 17 September 2007, the Trust Fund contains a total amount of €2,689,345.32.

  98. 98.

    TFV Regulations, art. 42; Rules of Procedure & Evidence, rule 85.

  99. 99.

    To date, the Court is investigating the following situations: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Sudan, see for up-to-date information http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.htlm.

  100. 100.

    Henzelin et al. note that restitution is rarely available in practice. See Henzelin et al, 2006, p. 331.

  101. 101.

    See further Brouwer, de, A.L.M., Reparation to Victims of Sexual Violence: Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, pp. 207–237, at 218 ff, 2007.

  102. 102.

    Henzelin et al, 2006, p. 331.

  103. 103.

    See also Rules of Procedure and Evidence, rule 98; TFV Regulations, arts. 59–75.

  104. 104.

    Rules of Procedure & Evidence, rule 98(3); TFV Regulations, arts. 60, 69–72.

  105. 105.

    See also De Brouwer, 2007, p. 227.

  106. 106.

    P. de Greiff and M. Wierda, The Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court: Between Possibilities and Constraints, in K. de Feyter, S. Parmentier, M. Bossuyt and P.Lemmens (eds.), Out of the Ashes: Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systemic Human Rights Violations, Antwerpen: Intersentia 2006, pp. 225–243. See also Van Boven who noted that ‘the types of situations referred to the International Criminal Court […] all involve systematic and widespread attacks against civilian populations, affecting many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of women, men and children. The reparative capacities of the Court and its Trust Fund for Victims will be complex as regards the demarcation of beneficiaries and the entitlements to and modalities of reparation.’ Van Boven, 2007, p. 20.

  107. 107.

    De Brouwer, 2007, p. 233.

  108. 108.

    Id., p. 236. It should furthermore be noted that the Trust Fund may also provide interim relief through psychical or psychological rehabilitation or material support during the investigation phase (on condition that the Court does not block this decision).

  109. 109.

    Van Boven, 2007, p. 24.

  110. 110.

    Henzelin et al, 2006, pp. 339–343.

  111. 111.

    However, one can discuss whether terrorism can be defined as ‘crimes against humanity’.

  112. 112.

    P.J. Wertheim, Should Grave Crimes of International Terrorism be Included in the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?, Policy and Society, 22 (2), pp. 1–21, 2003.

  113. 113.

    See http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24216.htm.

  114. 114.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/111&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr.

  115. 115.

    The losses were estimated at USD 40.2 billion (of which business interruption insurance 27%) and are at least double the next largest loss in history. Damages were at least ten times greater than the next largest man made disaster, since all previous big losses resulted from natural disasters. The catastrophe caused losses in several insurance lines of business, which hitherto had never been hit: life insurance, workers compensation and disability insurance. European insurers are financially responsible for 50% of the total insured loss, North American insurers carry 40% and the remaining 10% will be borne by Bermudan companies. See Koch, 2006, p. 8.

  116. 116.

    According to a general report by reinsurer Swiss Re, no bankruptcies or panic sell-off on insurers’ assets took place, www.swissre.com.

  117. 117.

    Three Madrid railroad stations were target of a severe terrorist bomb attack on 11 March 2004, causing more than 200 deaths and over 1400 casualties. Spain’s state-sponsored pool CCR will cover for all losses, other than life insurance. The aggregated insured loss is estimated at more than €25 million, www.elmundodinero.com.

  118. 118.

    C. Courbage and P.M. Liedtke, On insurability and Its Limits, in: P.M. Liedtke and C. Courbage (eds.), Insurance and September 11, One Year After, impact, Lessons and Unresolved Issues, Geneva: The Geneva Association 2002, pp. 227–235.

  119. 119.

    Courbage and Liedtke (2002), p. 228.

  120. 120.

    Koch, 2006, p. 11. See also Koch, B.A., Indemnifying Victims of Terrorism, Preliminary Considerations with a Particular Focus on the Role of Insurance, CJ-S-VICT (2007) 10, 29 August 2007.

  121. 121.

    Austria has created an insurance pool which is not backed up by the state.

  122. 122.

    See for more information: www.tripvzw.be (info in Dutch and French only).

  123. 123.

    The NHT offers coverage for non-life businesses, health and life insurance and commercial insurance. Aviation is excluded.

  124. 124.

    Claims are borne directly by insurers.

  125. 125.

    Koch, 2006, p. 15.

  126. 126.

    L.D. Cluff and S. Jonkman, Terrorism Insurance Post 9/11: Principles for Designing Private/Public Programs, in: P.M.Liedtke and C. Courbage (eds.), Insurance and September 11, One Year After, impact, Lessons and Unresolved Issues, Geneva: The Geneva Association 2002, pp. 215–227.

  127. 127.

    See Cluff and Jonkman, pp. 222–223. In Israel for instance, the government administers two structural and direct insurance programs for property/casualty and life and health losses resulting from terrorist attacks. Tax revenues fund both programs. See in this context also the concluding remarks of H. Koziol in: Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, pp. 306–307.

  128. 128.

    A. Gron and A.O. Sykes, Terrorism and Insurance Markets: A Role for the Government as Insurer?, 36 Indiana Law Review 447–463 (2003). See also critical S. Levmore & K. D. Logue, Insuring Against Terrorism and Crime, 102 Michigan Law Review 268–327, (2003).

  129. 129.

    Koch (2006), p. 6 ff.

  130. 130.

    See the UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1262. United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, UN Doc. A/RES/54/109, 9 December 1999.

  131. 131.

    See for some information:

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_disrupt_en.htm.

  132. 132.

    Koch (2006), p. 7.

  133. 133.

    Shuman, D.W. (2004), When Time Does not Heal: Understanding the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay in the resolution of tort cases, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 880–897. Shuman, D.W. (1994), The Psychology of Compensation in Tort Law, Kansas Law Review, 43, 39–77.

  134. 134.

    http://www.september11fund.org/index.php.

  135. 135.

    As a result of the firework explosion, 18 people died and 900 people sustained injury.

  136. 136.

    young people died and over 200 adolescents got severely injured.

  137. 137.

    Note that the Netherlands have introduced the so-called hybrid model, where the adhesion procedure and the compensation order exist side by side. See further Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 1075 ff.

  138. 138.

    See Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, Chapter 26.

  139. 139.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 1069.

  140. 140.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 1072.

  141. 141.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 1099.

  142. 142.

    De Greijff, pp. 452–453.

  143. 143.

    Pablo de Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, The International Center for Transitional Justice, Oxford University Press, 2006.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., p. 1

  145. 145.

    Boven, T. van, The Right to a Remedy as contained in International Instruments: Access to Justice and Reparation in Treaties and the New United Nations Principles, forthcoming, Bruylant Publishers, 20072007, pp. 16 and 18. See also Van Boven, Reparative Justice – Focus on Victims, SIM Lecture 2007, on file with the authors.

  146. 146.

    Van Boven, 2007, p. 22. See also Pablo De Greiff, Justice and Reparations, in Pablo de Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, The International Center for Transitional Justice, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 452–503.

  147. 147.

    Boven, T. van, The Right to a Remedy as contained in International Instruments: Access to Justice and Reparation in Treaties and the New United Nations Principles, forthcoming, Bruylant Publishers, 20072007, pp. 16 and 18. See also Van Boven, Reparative Justice – Focus on Victims, SIM Lecture 2007, on file with the authors.

  148. 148.

    De Greiff, 2006, p. 454.

  149. 149.

    See De Greiff in similar words regarding large-scale human rights violations, id., p. 456.

  150. 150.

    Special legislation for victims of terrorism often stipulates that social rehabilitation is one of the goals to achieve.

  151. 151.

    The setting up of commemorations is not always easy. Note for instance the discussions between the victims’ families of 9/11 and the business developers regarding the reconstruction of the site of the World Trade Center, see for more information, Issacharoff, S. and Morawiec Mansfield, A., Compensation for the Victims of September 11, in De Greiff, P. (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 307 ff.

  152. 152.

    Van Boven, 2007, p. 24.

  153. 153.

    Id., p. 457.

  154. 154.

    De Greiff, 2006, p. 468.

  155. 155.

    Id., p. 470.

  156. 156.

    A report was drafted in November 2007 by the CoE Group of Specialists on remedies for crime victims (CJ-S-Vict). This group concluded that victims of terrorism are not essentially different from victims of crime, yet that there are some specialties in case of large-scale attacks.

  157. 157.

    See also Albrecht & Kilchling who note that differences between compensation relating to crime victims or victims of large-scale terrorism ‘are located in the areas of planning, organization and co-ordination of the response to victimization […].’ 2005, p. 58.

  158. 158.

    Note that the UK provided compensation to the victims of the London Bombings under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (covering also victims of ordinary crime), but decided to launch a special booklet in order to be able to address the claims put forward by the victims.

  159. 159.

    See Counter Terrorism Strategy of 30 November and see for other documents Chapter 1,

    http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st14/st14469-re04.en05_OnlinePDF.pdf.

  160. 160.

    Remember that the European Solidarity Fund discussed in Section 6.5 does not offer direct payments to victims.

  161. 161.

    Presentation by Ms. Carol Stone during the OSCE High Level Meeting on Victims of Terrorism, Vienna, 13–14 September 2007. See also www.lbrcf.org.uk/publications.jsp.

Bibliography

  • Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Boven, van, T., The Right to a Remedy as contained in International Instruments: Access to Justice and Reparation in Treaties and the New United Nations Principles, Bruylant Publishers, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Brienen, M.E.I. and Hoegen E.H., Victims of Crime in 22 European Jurisdictions: The Implementation of Recommendation 85 (11) of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Tilburg: Wolf Legal Productions 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • De Greiff, P (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, B.A., (ed.), Terrorism, Tort Law and Insurance, A Comparative Survey, Tort and Insurance Law vol. 11, Vienna: Springer 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikaelsson, J. and Wergens, A., Repairing the Irreparable, State Compensation to Crime Victims in the European Union, The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, Umea, Sweden, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Munich Re Group, 11th International Liability Forum, Acts of Terrorism, Tort Law and Liability Insurance, 2007, http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-05501_en_OnlinePDF.pdf

  • Shapo, M.S., Compensation for Victims of Terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005

    Google Scholar 

Book Chapters

  • Cluff, L.D. and Jonkman,S., Terrorism Insurance Post 9/11: Principles for Designing Private/Public Programs, in: Liedtke and Courbage (eds.), Insurance and September 11, One Year After, impact, Lessons and Unresolved Issues, Geneva: The Geneva Association 2002, pp. 215–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Courbage, C. and Liedtke, P.M., On Insurability and its Limits, in: Liedtke and Courbage (eds.), Insurance and September 11, One Year After: Impact, Lessons and Unresolved Issues, Geneva: The Geneva Association 2002, pp. 227–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenhuijsen, M., Public Damage Funds. European Developments and Some Comparative Observations, in: Fattah and Parmentier, (eds.), Victim Policies and Criminal Justice on the Road to Restorative Justice – Essays in Honour of Tony Peters (Leuven 2001) pp. 83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • De Greiff, P. and Wierda, M., TheTrust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court: Between Possibilities and Constraints, in: De Feyter, Parmentier, Bossuyt and Lemmens (eds.), Out of the Ashes: Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systemic Human Rights Violations, Antwerpen: Intersentia 2006, pp. 225–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtte, van H., Das, H., and Delmartino, B., United Nations Compensation Commission, in: De Greiff, P (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 321–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Issacharoff, S. and Morawiec Mansfield, A., Compensation for the Victims of September 11, in: De Greiff, P (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 284–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahnstein, C., Liability Insurance for Risks of Terrorism, in: B.A. Koch (ed.), A Comparative Survey, Tort and Insurance Law, vol. 11, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Merari, A., Psycological Aspects of Suicide Terrorism, in: B. Bongar et al. (ed.), Psychology of Terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006, p. 101–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, D., The United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Reparations: Context and Contents, in: De Feyter, Parmentier, Bossuyt & Lemmens (eds.), Out of the Ashes: Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations, Antwerpen: Intersentia 2005, pp. 11–32

    Google Scholar 

Articles

  • Abraham, E.S. & Logue, K.D., The Genie and the Bottle: Collateral Sources under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, 54 DePaul L. Rev., 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, de, A.L.M., Reparation to Victims of Sexual Violence: Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, pp. 207–237, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, K., State Compensation to Crime Victims and the Principle of Social Solidarity - Can Theoretical Analysis Contribute to a Future European Framework?, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 13/2,pp. 148–178, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Diller, M., Tort and Social Welfare Principles in the Victim Compensation Fund, 53 DePaul Law Review 719-68 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, L., The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund – A Model for the Future or a one-off phenomenon? Munich Re Group, 11th International Liability Forum, Acts of Terrorism, Tort Law and Liability Insurance, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Gron, B. & Sykes, A.O., Terrorism and Insurance Markets: A Role for the Government as Insurer? 36 Indiana Law Review, pp. 447–63, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Henzelin M., Heiskanen V., and Mettraux G, Reparations to Victims Before the International Criminal Court: Lessons from International Mass Claims Processes, Criminal Law Forum (2006) 17:317344

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, C.C., Understanding the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: The proper response or a dangerous precedent? Ann. 2002 ATLA-CLE 243, 2002, Vol. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Levmore, S. & Logue, K.D., Insuring Against Terrorism – and Crime, 102 Michigan Law Review, pp. 268–327, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Miers, D., Rebuilding Lives: Operational and Policy Issues in the Compensation of Victims of Violent and Terrorist Crimes, Criminal Law Review, August 2006, pp. 695–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullenix, L.M. & Stewart, K.B., The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Fund approaches to resolving mass tort litigation, Conn. Ins. Law Journal Association, fall 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, R.L. & Sugarman, S.D., The Case for specially Compensating the Victims of Terrorist Acts: An Assessment, not yet printed, but to be published in Hofstra Law Review, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • R.L. Rabin, The September 11 Victim Compensation Fund: A Circumscribed Response or an Auspicious Model? Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers nr. 65, L.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, D.W., The Psychology of Compensation in Tort Law, Kansas Law Review, 43, pp. 39–77, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, D.W., When Time Does not Heal: Understanding the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay in the resolution of tort cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, pp. 880–897, 2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, H., Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Terrorism: Lessons Learned in the Israeli Experience, Indiana Law Review 335, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler T.R & Thorisdottir H., A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm: Examining the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, DePaul L. Rev 355, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, P.J., Should Grave Crimes of International Terrorism be Included in the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Policy and Society 22 (2), pp. 1–21, 2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Reports

Internet Publications

Lectures

  • Van Boven, T., Reparative Justice – Focus on Victims, SIM Lecture 2007

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg University, International Victimology Institute (INTERVICT), 5000, LE, Tilburg, Netherlands

    Rianne Letschert & Karin Ammerlaan

Authors
  1. Rianne Letschert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Ammerlaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Victimology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Rianne Letschert

  2. International Victimology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Antony Pemberton

  3. Leuvens Instituut vr Criminologie (LINC), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Herbert Hooverplein 9, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Ines Staiger

Appendix I

Appendix I

Lessons Learned by the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund Footnote 161

  1. i.

    Setting up

    • Do it quickly.

    • Get a partner (or more than one).

    • Get experienced staff.

    • Look (and be) professional.

    • Don’t reinvent wheels.

    • Focus on single task.

    • Devise feedback/evaluation mechanisms from Day 1.

  2. ii.

    Know your beneficiaries

    • Identify who they are.

    • Realise they may not know how to ask.

    • They are stressed/emotional/traumatised.

    • Know why you are giving.

    • People have urgent, practical needs.

  3. iii.

    Find your ethos

    • Define and redefine what you are saying.

    • Learn from precedent.

    • Understand your relationships with other organisations.

    • Be liberated by what you don’t need to do.

    • Don’t over commit.

    • Set criteria but leave room for exceptions.

  4. iv.

    Processing applications

    • Work out a system to capture information.

    • Keep it simple.

    • Use third parties to verify information.

    • Give sooner not later.

    • Expect late applications.

  5. v.

    Communications

    • Keep all partners and applicants informed (e.g. newsletters, website).

    • Recognise you are under press scrutiny.

    • Say it first before they ask.

    • Prepare a ‘line to take’ (on everything).

    • Target journalists.

  6. vi.

    Have an endgame

    • Prepare for wind-down from day one.

    • Don’t extend your remit.

    • Announce closure well in advance.

    • Set deadlines for the last applications and donations.

    • Identify your legacy: pass on the knowledge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Letschert, R., Ammerlaan, K. (2009). Compensation and Reparation for Victims of Terrorism. In: Letschert, R., Pemberton, A., Staiger, I. (eds) Assisting Victims of Terrorism. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3025-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation