What price for human rights? Compensating human rights violations
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Cambridge
Department Name: Law
Abstract
When individuals are mistreated by European governments, the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for reviewing state actions under the European Convention of Human Rights. If the individuals are successful in proving a violation, the ECtHR may award them damages for the treatment suffered. Whilst domestic courts of the 47 Council of Europe (COE) Member States, over which the Court has jurisdiction, usually award damages on the basis of scales that are public, this is not the case with the ECtHR. The Court sets out no rules or guidelines as to when individuals are likely to get compensation; it also does not explain which elements of their treatment applicants should emphasise nor how much they should ask for. There is no information about maximum or minimum amounts awarded to individuals for specific violations nor about how claims in one case might compare to those in other cases. Often, individuals turning to the Court ask for millions of euros in damages, but only receive a few thousand.
Many scholars insist that in the human rights context damages can play a crucial role in ensuring individual justice. The process of according compensation focuses the proceedings before the court on the individual, the victim of the violation and allows him/her the vindication of their rights. But the current practice of the Court appears arbitrary and opaque.
In response to demands from practice (lawyers who represent victims of rights violations and national judges who enforce judgments of the Court), this project seeks to fill the gap created by the ECtHR practice for the first time. Through an empirical quantitative and qualitative study of the last ten years of caselaw relating to just satisfaction, the project will discern the legal principles from the practice of the Court and critically assess the Court's role in awarding compensation for human rights violations. It does this in three steps:
First, the project quantitatively analyses 12,000 cases of the ECtHR to determine when and how the Court awards damages for human rights violations. Second, the project looks at the legal basis on which the Court exercises its function. As an international court, the ECtHR only has subsidiary jurisdiction to award damages. National courts are arguably better placed to adapt compensation to the specific jurisdiction or the facts of the case. Thus, when the Court decides to award damages, it faces important questions of legitimacy. Through interviews with judges the project therefore seeks to understand how those who sit on the Court perceive its role in protecting human rights. Building on both stages, the final step of the project examines the discrepancies between how the ECtHR judges perceive human rights and what monetary value they attach to them. In dialogue with judges, causes and justifications for these discrepancies will be identified and possible solutions explored.
The project brings together academics and practitioners from different jurisdictions of the COE to fill the gap created by the Court. Through research visits to the Court, advisory group meetings and a three-day dissemination workshop, practitioners, government officials, and national and European judges will be consulted to ensure cross-fertilisation and knowledge exchange. They will be involved in the preparation, implementation as well as dissemination of the project so as to guarantee the greatest impact.
This project can make a fundamental contribution to human rights law by creating a new law of human rights damages. It will generate an important amount of new data, which will be empirically analysed for the first time to seek out legal principles to be applied in future cases both on the international level and in courts of the 47 countries of the COE. More broadly, the project represents an exciting opportunity to explain better the role of the ECtHR and understand what drives its practice of compensating for human rights violations.
Many scholars insist that in the human rights context damages can play a crucial role in ensuring individual justice. The process of according compensation focuses the proceedings before the court on the individual, the victim of the violation and allows him/her the vindication of their rights. But the current practice of the Court appears arbitrary and opaque.
In response to demands from practice (lawyers who represent victims of rights violations and national judges who enforce judgments of the Court), this project seeks to fill the gap created by the ECtHR practice for the first time. Through an empirical quantitative and qualitative study of the last ten years of caselaw relating to just satisfaction, the project will discern the legal principles from the practice of the Court and critically assess the Court's role in awarding compensation for human rights violations. It does this in three steps:
First, the project quantitatively analyses 12,000 cases of the ECtHR to determine when and how the Court awards damages for human rights violations. Second, the project looks at the legal basis on which the Court exercises its function. As an international court, the ECtHR only has subsidiary jurisdiction to award damages. National courts are arguably better placed to adapt compensation to the specific jurisdiction or the facts of the case. Thus, when the Court decides to award damages, it faces important questions of legitimacy. Through interviews with judges the project therefore seeks to understand how those who sit on the Court perceive its role in protecting human rights. Building on both stages, the final step of the project examines the discrepancies between how the ECtHR judges perceive human rights and what monetary value they attach to them. In dialogue with judges, causes and justifications for these discrepancies will be identified and possible solutions explored.
The project brings together academics and practitioners from different jurisdictions of the COE to fill the gap created by the Court. Through research visits to the Court, advisory group meetings and a three-day dissemination workshop, practitioners, government officials, and national and European judges will be consulted to ensure cross-fertilisation and knowledge exchange. They will be involved in the preparation, implementation as well as dissemination of the project so as to guarantee the greatest impact.
This project can make a fundamental contribution to human rights law by creating a new law of human rights damages. It will generate an important amount of new data, which will be empirically analysed for the first time to seek out legal principles to be applied in future cases both on the international level and in courts of the 47 countries of the COE. More broadly, the project represents an exciting opportunity to explain better the role of the ECtHR and understand what drives its practice of compensating for human rights violations.
Planned Impact
This research aims to benefit not only (1) academics (see 'academic beneficiaries'), but also (2) the public sector, (3) the private sector, (4) the third sector and (5) the general public.
In the domestic public sector, what price the ECtHR assigns to human rights is of particular relevance to the judiciary, the government, and the Parliament. For judges, the results of the study will be directly relevant in shaping their approach to human rights damages. Currently under the Human Rights Act, judges seek to mirror the approach of the ECtHR. However, since its approach is unclear, national judges often hesitate as to whether to award damages and what these should be. The empirical analysis of the study will clarify these inconsistencies and fill the gap.
The government, which appears as respondent in human rights cases before the ECtHR, and the Parliament are involved in shaping human rights legislation in the UK. Both branches will benefit from this study by enabling legislative reform. In this regard, the Law Commission for England and Wales (the law reform body established by the Parliament) and the Joint Committee for Human Rights (the select committee of both Houses) will be specifically targeted in the dissemination of the project's findings to encourage and facilitate law reform.
The domestic impact of the study is not limited only to the UK public sector but in equal measure applies also to the 47 countries of the Council of Europe. The results of the empirical analysis are likely to have important consequences for the judiciaries, governments and legislative bodies across Europe, affecting both their judicial practice and human rights laws.
In the international public sector, the project is of utmost relevance to the ECtHR itself. Although some of the legal principles guiding its practice may already be known to ECtHR judges, the project will uncover potential biases. In addition, ECtHR judges will be able to benefit from the differing views of their colleagues as to the scope of the Court's function. Both may affect and change future ECtHR decision-making. Beyond Europe, the results will benefit human rights bodies of the United Nations and other regional human rights courts and tribunals, which look to the ECtHR and refer to its jurisprudence.
In the private and third sector - both in the UK and across the Council of Europe - the project will have a crucial impact on practitioners (barristers and solicitors) and NGOs who advise victims of human rights violations and represent them before the Court. This project has been particularly tailored to the demands of these audiences so that they can benefit from enhanced clarity on the law of damages, improve victim representation and enhance their potential for rights vindication. At the end of the project, both practitioners as well as victims of human rights violations - the general public - will understand more clearly which elements of a particular human rights violation to focus on.
These four audiences benefit from the project in the following ways:
- Understand the legal principles behind the ECtHR practice and clarify the inconsistencies in caselaw;
- Acquire access to a new dataset of all the relevant ECtHR decisions of the last ten years;
- Gain insight into how judges perceive the Court's power and its scope;
- Participate in knowledge exchange and learn from beneficiaries from other backgrounds and jurisdictions of the Council of Europe.
The Pathways to Impact strategy (see below) has been designed so that the project will have an immediate and relevant impact on these audiences. The beneficiaries have been involved in the research project from the conceptualisation phase onwards, and will be involved (including through the Advisory Group and the Bridge) in its implementation and the dissemination of the findings.
In the domestic public sector, what price the ECtHR assigns to human rights is of particular relevance to the judiciary, the government, and the Parliament. For judges, the results of the study will be directly relevant in shaping their approach to human rights damages. Currently under the Human Rights Act, judges seek to mirror the approach of the ECtHR. However, since its approach is unclear, national judges often hesitate as to whether to award damages and what these should be. The empirical analysis of the study will clarify these inconsistencies and fill the gap.
The government, which appears as respondent in human rights cases before the ECtHR, and the Parliament are involved in shaping human rights legislation in the UK. Both branches will benefit from this study by enabling legislative reform. In this regard, the Law Commission for England and Wales (the law reform body established by the Parliament) and the Joint Committee for Human Rights (the select committee of both Houses) will be specifically targeted in the dissemination of the project's findings to encourage and facilitate law reform.
The domestic impact of the study is not limited only to the UK public sector but in equal measure applies also to the 47 countries of the Council of Europe. The results of the empirical analysis are likely to have important consequences for the judiciaries, governments and legislative bodies across Europe, affecting both their judicial practice and human rights laws.
In the international public sector, the project is of utmost relevance to the ECtHR itself. Although some of the legal principles guiding its practice may already be known to ECtHR judges, the project will uncover potential biases. In addition, ECtHR judges will be able to benefit from the differing views of their colleagues as to the scope of the Court's function. Both may affect and change future ECtHR decision-making. Beyond Europe, the results will benefit human rights bodies of the United Nations and other regional human rights courts and tribunals, which look to the ECtHR and refer to its jurisprudence.
In the private and third sector - both in the UK and across the Council of Europe - the project will have a crucial impact on practitioners (barristers and solicitors) and NGOs who advise victims of human rights violations and represent them before the Court. This project has been particularly tailored to the demands of these audiences so that they can benefit from enhanced clarity on the law of damages, improve victim representation and enhance their potential for rights vindication. At the end of the project, both practitioners as well as victims of human rights violations - the general public - will understand more clearly which elements of a particular human rights violation to focus on.
These four audiences benefit from the project in the following ways:
- Understand the legal principles behind the ECtHR practice and clarify the inconsistencies in caselaw;
- Acquire access to a new dataset of all the relevant ECtHR decisions of the last ten years;
- Gain insight into how judges perceive the Court's power and its scope;
- Participate in knowledge exchange and learn from beneficiaries from other backgrounds and jurisdictions of the Council of Europe.
The Pathways to Impact strategy (see below) has been designed so that the project will have an immediate and relevant impact on these audiences. The beneficiaries have been involved in the research project from the conceptualisation phase onwards, and will be involved (including through the Advisory Group and the Bridge) in its implementation and the dissemination of the findings.
Publications
Fikfak V
(2022)
Structural Remedies: Human Rights Law
in (2022) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Procedural Law
Fikfak V
(2021)
Compliance and Compensation: Money as a Currency of Human Rights
in SSRN Electronic Journal
Fikfak V
(2021)
Friendly Settlement Before the European Court of Human Rights
in SSRN Electronic Journal
Fikfak V
(2022)
Against settlement before the European Court of Human Rights
in International Journal of Constitutional Law
Fikfak V
(2018)
Changing State Behaviour: Damages before the European Court of Human Rights
in European Journal of International Law
Fikfak V
(2017)
What price for human rights? Compensating human rights violations - ESRC
in Impact
Fikfak V
(2022)
ESTABLISHING DAMAGES FOR MASS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
in The Cambridge Law Journal
Fikfak V
(2016)
Protecting Human Rights in Austerity Claims in the UK
in Hague Journal on the Rule of Law
| Description | When individuals are tortured or when their human rights are otherwise violated by European governments or domestic authorities, the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for reviewing state actions under the European Convention of Human Rights. If the individuals are successful in proving a violation, the ECtHR may award them damages for their pain and suffering. Yet, the Court does not explain when individuals are likely to get compensation; it also does not explain which elements of their treatment applicants should emphasise nor how much they should ask for. There is no information about maximum or minimum amounts awarded to individuals for specific violations nor about how claims in one case might compare to complaints in other cases. Often, individuals turning to the Court ask for millions of euros in damages, but only receive a few thousand. The empirical study 'What Price for Human Rights', funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and based at the University of Cambridge, sought to study for the first time what price the European Court of Human Rights assigns to individual human rights and to explain the justifications that drive this practice. A team of researchers led by Dr Veronika Fikfak, sought to analyse 12,000 judgments of the Court and found a large discrepancy between what the Court says it is doing and what is in fact happening. Whilst the Court says its aim is to compensate the specific victim for their pain and suffering, the results of the empirical analysis show that the victim is wholly neglected in the Court's consideration of damages. We tested a number of variables connected with the victim to determine whether these are significant in the setting of compensation amounts: we inspected the age of the victim, their gender and nationality, the consequences they suffered as a result of the violation, their vulnerability, and whether or not they made a claim for damages in the first place or how they assessed their pain and suffering. We found that the variables related to the individual applicant are mostly ignored by the Court. Their age, gender, vulnerability and whether they suffer permanent or non-permanent consequences as a result of the violation does not appear affect the compensation amounts. The main action of asking for compensation is important, but how victims assess their pain has no bearing on what they ultimately receive. In cases with multiple applicants, the award is not individualised and the victim depends on others in the group. The results suggests that when it comes to damages, the victim is clearly not at the centre of the Court's analysis. Although the Court may insist its aim is to deliver individual justice and to compensate the victim for their pain and suffering, this is clearly not understood by paying attention to the particular circumstances of the victim. Instead, the amount of compensation that the individual receives depends on the respondent state (that is the state that is being sued for having caused the violation). The following state variables have a significant impact on the determination of the quantum: the identity of the country, the type of state conduct (violation) and the measurement of the frequency of such conduct. The Court appears to be focusing on state conduct and determines damages depending on how that conduct has been qualified (e.g. as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment). Damages for torture/excessive force/arbitrary detention are considerably elevated and adjusted on the basis of the country's GDP. In principle, therefore, rich countries pay more for the same type of behaviour than poor countries. Most importantly, the frequency of the violation appears to influence the ultimate compensation awarded, but not in a manner we expected. Both behavioural economists and other practitioners argued that part of the Court's role is to dissuade systemic violators of human rights from repeating their behaviour in the future. Some judges on the Court go even so far as to argue that the Court should adopt punitive damages in order to motivate states to address systemic problems in their countries and prevent further repetitive cases from reaching the Court. Yet, the results of our regression analysis suggest that only up to 27 Euros extra is paid for every additional violation of torture, or inhuman and degrading treatment the Court has found against that country in its docket. Even more interesting are results in respect of Article 5 (arbitrary detention), where states pay on average 10-15 Euros less for every additional case of Article 5. This implies that the more a country violates Article 5, the less it pays. The same pattern of 'price reduction' can be noticed in the Burmych v Ukraine case, where in a series of decisions relating to the non-enforcement of judgments of Ukrainian courts, the Court reduced compensation for individuals waiting for enforcement from the initial €5,000 for non-pecuniary damage in 1999 to €1,000 in 2015. From 1999 to 2015, the 'price' for non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions had therefore fallen from €5,000 to 20 per cent of this amount. At first sight, these results are surprising. A human rights court is potentially allowing states to pay less the more they violate human rights norms. When asked about these results in interviews, judges admitted that sometimes concerns about compliance may affect the setting of damages. In this regard, if a country has many repetitive cases arising from a systemic violation, the Court may be inclined to lower the award to provide 'at least something' to victims. The lower the damages are, the reasoning goes, the more likely the state is to pay and the more likely the Court is to rid itself of the large number of (repetitive) cases. Yet, according to behaviour economists the decision to adjust or effectively lower damages to facilitate states' compliance has no deterrent effect and, may potentially be leading to the potential collapse of the system. In 2017, in Burmych v. Ukraine, when 12148 cases returned to the Court, after not having been enforced by Ukraine (in spite of the considerable price reduction from 1999 to 2015), the Court held that it was not its task to try to incentivize Ukraine to comply with its judgments. The Court dismissed all of the cases as well as any future cases and forwarded them to the Department of Execution at the Council of Europe. The Court's argument was that - through price reduction - it had done everything it could, and now it was up to the Department of Execution to find a solution for the implementation of its judgments. The monies still remain unpaid. There are of course a number of problems with the approach uncovered. if the general image of the ECtHR is one of a forum available to every human rights victim - to hear her claim and to redress the violation, the results clearly show that although access to the Court may be about the victim, damages most certainly are not. Instead, there is a clear shift from the victim to the state - what it might be able to pay or what it may be able to comply with. This differs greatly from the individual justice narrative the Court is trying to portray about itself. Furthermore, it is an open question whether the Court is correct to reduce just satisfaction in cases involving frequent violators with the aim to facilitate compliance. The Court's approach goes against much of behavioural economics literature, which instead recommends the use of punitive damages to motivate states to change their behaviour. Practitioners appearing before the Court similarly argue that low damage amounts together with states' belief that the payment of compensation concludes the case, mean that the system contains no real incentive to motivate states to address and remove systemic problems at home. Instead, the payment of damages frequently means that for states the issue is resolved and the 'door is closed'. Often, however, the underlying problem still remains and generates new repetitive cases. The question therefore remains as to whether the Court in its approach to damage-setting should be concerned with compliance and whether by making repetitive violations cheaper, it is enabling frequent violators to 'pay off' their behaviour more easily and failing to deter future violations. The second problem uncovered by the study is that the position of the victim is further undermined by information asymmetry about the potential remedies. By keeping the scales according to which damages are calculated secret, the Court is putting a disproportionate burden on the victims. Victims have to invest disproportionate amounts of time and effort (as well as money) to bring their claims to the Court. Often, they are unaware of how small the damage amounts will be. In contrast, States who appear frequently before the Court know precisely and accurately how much a certain type of behaviour may cost. Torture costs about 20 000 Euros, a disappearance 60 000 Euros, and arbitrary detention - depending on the respective paragraph of Article 5 between 25 Euros a day and 500 Euros a day. Some countries are aware of the type of cases coming through the pipeline of the Court and are able to 'plan' how much the violations will cost. An intriguing example of such behaviour is Russia, which is one of the worst systemic violators of the ECHR (together with Turkey, Romania and Ukraine). Russian legislation explicitly requires that the country's annual budget contains a part intended to pay off ECHR violations. Between 2010 and 2016, the amount 'reserved' for ECHR compensation was respectively 114 million rubles (US $1.7 million) and 500 million rubles (US $7.6 million). Although we cannot conclude from this that Russia 'plans' its violations in advance, the budgeting clearly reveals that Russia is able to calculate in advance how much ECtHR violations will cost in a given year. The same cannot be said of victims of human rights violations. As a rule, they remain ignorant of the low amounts of compensation and if offered friendly settlement, are often unable to assess whether the offer made is comparable to prior cases or not. The publication of the scales according to which damage amounts are calculated (which the Court has thus far resisted) would go some way towards addressing this information asymmetry. Whilst the current practice of the Court in relation to damages is to a large extent dictated by precedent and scales, which have sought to consolidate this precedent into consistent practice, in 2020 the Court is embarking on a revision of its just satisfaction practice. Important voices within the Court have suggested changes to its approach. It is hoped that the current practice - though understandable from an execution/compliance perspective - can be revisited in order to redress the potential commodification of human rights, which this study has revealed. For more on the study, please refer to the interview and articles. |
| Exploitation Route | I am building on the results of this research and am proceedings to do a five year project (funded by the ERC) investigating the link between damage amounts, compliance and enforcement of judgments. I am therefore investigating precisely the link that judges say motivates them to lower the damage awards. |
| Sectors | Education,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr5IMGzJ5K4 |
| Description | The European Court of Human Rights has now adopted a streamlined process to the issue of calculating non-pecuniary damages, which takes into account the findings of the study and adjusts some of the variables to correct the biases identified in the study. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2021 |
| Sector | Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Results sharing with Judges of the European Court of Human Rights and Registrar |
| Geographic Reach | Europe |
| Policy Influence Type | Implementation circular/rapid advice/letter to e.g. Ministry of Health |
| Description | (HRNUDGE) - A NUDGE IN THE RIGHTS DIRECTION? REDESIGNING THE ARCHITECTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS REMEDIES |
| Amount | € 1,493,976 (EUR) |
| Funding ID | 803981 |
| Organisation | European Commission |
| Sector | Public |
| Country | European Union (EU) |
| Start | 03/2019 |
| End | 02/2024 |
| Description | Humboldt Research Fellowship for Experienced Researchers |
| Amount | € 70,000 (EUR) |
| Organisation | Alexander von Humboldt Foundation |
| Sector | Public |
| Country | Germany |
| Start | 01/2021 |
| End | 07/2023 |
| Title | Damages database |
| Description | The database includes cases with information about damage amounts awarded to individual victims, including the violation that has occurred. The model used in the analysis is thoroughly described in the Leiden Journal of International Law article, which is available from the journal as well as on SSRN, Researchgate and www.humanrightsnudge.com. The data is available upon request with the author, however, since the database is part of an ongoing ERC project, the Funder has requested that all identifying features that could lead to the identification of a victim be removed (as per data regulation). |
| Type Of Material | Database/Collection of data |
| Year Produced | 2019 |
| Provided To Others? | No |
| Impact | The database is currently being analysed and has thus far generated multiple articles, with two additional under review. The database will also be used in my next 5-year ERC funded study and will be complemented by further information, thus leading to further outputs. |
| URL | http://www.humanrightsnudge.com |
| Description | Behavioural International Law |
| Organisation | Alexander von Humboldt Foundation |
| Country | Germany |
| Sector | Public |
| PI Contribution | Establishment of a behavioural international law network with colleagues at Leiden, Hamburg, and with the help of Humboldt Foundation. Establishment of European Society of International Law Interest Group on Social Sciences and International Law. |
| Collaborator Contribution | Co-Organisation of workshops and co-authoring of papers. Humboldt Foundation provided funds for me to spend in Hamburg at the Institute of Law and Economics as an Senior Humboldt Fellow. |
| Impact | Multidisciplinary collaboration, bringing together economists, lawyers and social scientists. Two workshops held - one in Leiden and one in Hamburg. A number of publications will be forthcoming in the next year (including in the American Journal of International Law Unbound, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, German Law Journal). |
| Start Year | 2019 |
| Description | Behavioural International Law |
| Organisation | Leiden University |
| Country | Netherlands |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | Establishment of a behavioural international law network with colleagues at Leiden, Hamburg, and with the help of Humboldt Foundation. Establishment of European Society of International Law Interest Group on Social Sciences and International Law. |
| Collaborator Contribution | Co-Organisation of workshops and co-authoring of papers. Humboldt Foundation provided funds for me to spend in Hamburg at the Institute of Law and Economics as an Senior Humboldt Fellow. |
| Impact | Multidisciplinary collaboration, bringing together economists, lawyers and social scientists. Two workshops held - one in Leiden and one in Hamburg. A number of publications will be forthcoming in the next year (including in the American Journal of International Law Unbound, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, German Law Journal). |
| Start Year | 2019 |
| Description | Behavioural International Law |
| Organisation | University of Hamburg |
| Country | Germany |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | Establishment of a behavioural international law network with colleagues at Leiden, Hamburg, and with the help of Humboldt Foundation. Establishment of European Society of International Law Interest Group on Social Sciences and International Law. |
| Collaborator Contribution | Co-Organisation of workshops and co-authoring of papers. Humboldt Foundation provided funds for me to spend in Hamburg at the Institute of Law and Economics as an Senior Humboldt Fellow. |
| Impact | Multidisciplinary collaboration, bringing together economists, lawyers and social scientists. Two workshops held - one in Leiden and one in Hamburg. A number of publications will be forthcoming in the next year (including in the American Journal of International Law Unbound, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, German Law Journal). |
| Start Year | 2019 |
| Description | Collaboration with Athens Public International Law Center, Professor Photini Pazartzis |
| Organisation | National and Kapodistrian University of Athens |
| Department | Cardiology |
| Country | Greece |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | On 16-17 November 2018, the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, in collaboration with the Athens Public International Law Center, held a workshop entitled 'Rethinking Reparations in International Law', organised by Dr Veronika Fikfak, fellow and director of studies at Homerton College, and Professor Photini Pazartzis, professor at the Faculty of Law at the National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. The ESRC funded workshop sought to address the recent developments and scholarship in the area of reparations in international law. It addressed questions such as the role remedies play in international law, whether this role is different in different areas of international law, how they are chosen by judges and arbitrators, how they are calculated, their efficiency, as well as various other issues. The workshop worked as a platform for discussion of new ideas about the efficiency of reparations in international law by bringing together scholars writing on theory of reparations, those conducting empirical or comparative research, as well as practitioners, judges and arbitrators. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The workshop was co-organised with Professor Photini Pazartzis, professor at the Faculty of Law at the National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. |
| Impact | A series of podcasts reporting on the workshop, which can be found here: https://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/2870585. |
| Start Year | 2018 |
| Description | Compliance Politics and International Investment Disputes |
| Organisation | University of Oslo |
| Country | Norway |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | COPIID project - Compliance Politics and International Investment Disputes - Will provide my data to compare setting of damages in human rights claims with investment claims. |
| Collaborator Contribution | COPIID project - Compliance Politics and International Investment Disputes - They will provide their data to compare setting of damages in human rights claims with investment claims. |
| Impact | None yet. |
| Start Year | 2022 |
| Description | EJIL Live Dr Veronika Fikfak |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A broadcast e.g. TV/radio/film/podcast (other than news/press) |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | In this episode of EJIL: Live! the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Professor Joseph Weiler, speaks with Dr Veronika Fikfak, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Cambridge, whose article "Changing State Behaviour: Damages before the European Court of Human Rights", appears in our 29:4 issue. In her pioneering article, Dr Fikfak analyses the ECtHR's practice of awarding damages. She and a team of researchers spent three years coding 12,000 decisions of the Court, seeking to understand which variables in a case - relating to the victim, the state and the events that occurred - affect the amount of damages awarded and subsequent compliance. In this conversation Dr Fikfak talks about her motivation for undertaking this study, the premises upon which it is based and the surprising results that emerged. The interview was recorded at the IE Law School, Madrid. EJIL: Live! is the official podcast of the European Journal of International Law (EJIL), one of the world's leading international law journals. Regular episodes of EJIL: Live! are released following the publication of each quarterly issue of the Journal, and include interviews with the authors of articles appearing in that issue as well as news and reviews when possible. Additional episodes, EJIL: Live! Extras, are also released from time to time to address a range of topical issues. Episodes of EJIL: Live! can be accessed via the EJIL website (www.ejil.org) and EJIL:Talk! (http://www.ejiltalk.org/). Comments and reactions to EJIL: Live! episodes are welcome, and may be submitted to our blog, EJIL: Talk! |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | http://ejil.org/episode.php?episode=37 |
| Description | European Society of International Law Lecture |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The ESIL Lecture Series hosts broadcasts of presentations on international law topics held at partner institutions, enabling the presentation to reach a wider audience of ESIL members and non-members alike. Dr Veronika Fikfak gave a lecture on 'Monetising Human Rights' on 13 April 2018 at the King's College London (Strand Campus, WC2R 2LS, London UK, in which she talked about the results of her study. Dr Mateja Steinbruck Platise acted as commentator. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOs3_BmjZUs |
| Description | Global Law at Reading Podcast |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | This episode of the GLAR podcast features a presentation by Dr Veronika Fikfak (University of Cambridge), entitled 'Compensating Human Rights Violations: Damages before the European Court of Human Rights'. Dr Fikfak's presentation was the first in the 2018-19 Ghandhi Research Seminar Series. It took place at the School of Law at the University of Reading on 28 November 2018, and was chaired by Dr Ruvi Ziegler. Talk abstract: When individuals are mistreated by European governments, the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for reviewing state actions under the European Convention of Human Rights. If the individuals are successful in proving a violation, the ECtHR may award them damages for the treatment suffered. Whilst domestic courts of the 47 Council of Europe (COE) Member States, over which the Court has jurisdiction, usually award damages on the basis of scales that are public, this is not the case with the ECtHR. The Court sets out no rules or guidelines as to when individuals are likely to get compensation; it also does not explain which elements of their treatment applicants should emphasise nor how much they should ask for. For many practitioners, the current practice of the Court appears arbitrary and opaque. In her talk, Dr Fikfak presented the patterns revealed in the ECtHR case law. Building on her empirical quantitative and qualitative study of the last ten years of case law relating to just satisfaction, she talks about the legal principles which can be discerned from the practice of the Court and critically assess the Court's role in awarding compensation for human rights violations. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://avcontent.reading.ac.uk/av/18/GLARPodcast31-ubioimzL1D-128Kbit_44kHz_stereo.mp3 |
| Description | Rethinking Reparations in International Law Workshop and Podcast |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | On 16-17 November 2018, the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, in collaboration with the Athens Public International Law Center, held a workshop entitled 'Rethinking Reparations in International Law', organised by Dr Veronika Fikfak, fellow and director of studies at Homerton College, and Professor Photini Pazartzis, professor at the Faculty of Law at the National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. The ESRC-funded workshop sought to address the recent developments and scholarship in the area of reparations in international law. It addressed questions such as the role remedies play in international law, whether this role is different in different areas of international law, how they are chosen by judges and arbitrators, how they are calculated, their efficiency, as well as various other issues. The workshop worked as a platform for discussion of new ideas about the efficiency of reparations in international law by bringing together scholars writing on theory of reparations, those conducting empirical or comparative research, as well as practitioners, judges and arbitrators. The workshop lasted two days and consisted of 7 panels, each addressing a different question. The first day ended with a debate with judges and practitioners on the issue of remedies in practice. The debate was led by Professor Eyal Benvenisti, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, and the issue was discussed by Judge Pete Kovacs, judge at the ICC, Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judge at the European Court of Human Rights, Dr Carla Ferstman, senior lecturer at the University of Essex, and Dr Conor McCarthy, barrister at Monckton Chambers. Overall, the workshop was a success. It drew reparation experts from institutions all over the world - various EU countries, but also South Africa, Turkey, the United States, and China. It received a lot of positive feedback from the participants, who saw it as a great opportunity to discuss reparations in a multidisciplinary setting. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/2870585 |