Practice Relating to Rule 150. Reparation
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:
5.288 There is no doubt that in international law the breach of an international obligation carries with it the obligation to make adequate reparation.
5.289 Where the breaches of international law are not merely breaches occurring in what may be termed a “civil” context (such as the expropriation of property without compensation) but occur in a context which is delictual, involving, in particular, the use of force in breach of the United Nations Charter and rules of international law having the character of ius cogens, the nature of the reparation to be made will need to reflect the more serious basis of liability.
5.290 Moreover, where a breach of international law has been accompanied by a deliberate intention to cause harm to those affected, the normal rule that reparation is only due in respect of the normal and reasonably foreseeable consequences of an unlawful act is extended so as to cover also those deliberately intended consequences. …
5.296 Where the primary remedy for the unlawful act (restitution) is not available, the principle of effective reparation requires extensive compensation. Against the background of the requirement that reparation must be “full” and that the injury for which reparation is due “includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State (Article 31.2), Article 36 of the [International Law Commission’s] Articles on State Responsibility provides:
“1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution.
2. The compensation shall cover any
financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established.”
[emphasis in original]